MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CRIAQ and CARIC: An Innovation Journey - Insights on How to Build Successful Research and Development Collaborations in Aerospace: The Case of the Quebec and Canadian Ecosystems

2016· article· en· W2516382466 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cedric Prince, Clothilde Petitjean, Sofiane Benyouci, Rose Beaulieu, David Nolet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovation Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsConsortium For Research and Innovation In Aerospace In Quebec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceBusinessEngineeringEngineering managementPolitical scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec (CRIAQ) and the Consortium for Aerospace Research and Innovation in Canada (CARIC) are organizations whose missions are to facilitate collaboration of researchers from the aerospace industry, academia and research centres, and to launch initiatives whose primary purpose is to promote responsive, impactful R&D. This letter presents the distinctive characteristics of these models and their impact on Quebec and Canada’s aerospace innovation culture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Innovation ManagementSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207