Recasting ‘truisms’ of low carbon technology cooperation through innovation systems: insights from the developing world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key challenge of approaches to low carbon technology transfer/cooperation is that too much attention is placed on outcomes, neglecting technology cooperation processes. An innovation systems (IS) analytical lens can help to understand dimensions of what makes low carbon technology cooperation more effective, as IS emphasizes the importance of these technology processes. In developing countries, IS analysis tends to focus on activities of firms, the public sector and universities (also coined the triple helix) aimed at improving the quality of ‘hardware’ while lowering the costs of production. While important, these aspects constitute partial segments of IS. This paper therefore advances the concept of IS within developing countries in the following ways. This paper questions the assumption that these IS are absent and that producer–user interaction is weak, through unpacking the notion regarding who is innovating and what is low carbon innovation. In doing so, we capture the roles of alternative actors (e.g. lay people versus only experts), and activities and products (e.g. ‘improvised’ goods and processes versus frontier, or second-tier, technologies) within these systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".