How open innovation processes vary between urban and remote environments: slow innovators, market-sourced information and frequency of interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic research on firm-level innovation is generally premised on the idea of open innovation, suggesting that innovation occurs more readily in urban settings or clusters, which generate local buzz and allow access to external actors. However, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that firms also introduce first-to-market innovations in remote locations. In this exploratory paper, building upon work by Philip McCann, we outline a conceptual framework that connects innovators (differentiated by information source and frequency of interaction with interlocutors) and location (distance from a metropolitan area): slow innovators, relying on non-market-sourced information and infrequent contacts, will be overrepresented in isolated locations. Fast innovators, relying on market-sourced information and frequent interactions, will locate closer to cities. Our results confirm this. Our interpretation of these results – slow innovators are more reliant on technological information which loses value more slowly than faster decaying market-oriented information – requires further investigation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it