MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543056647 · doi:10.1109/acstip.2007.4472900

The Role of Public R&D Laboratories in Innovation Networks: a Comparison between Canada and Mexico

2007· article· en· W2543056647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudia Díaz-Peréz, Ricardo Vargas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)DocumentationIdentification (biology)Public policyBusinessPublic administrationKnowledge managementRegional sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to analyze those institutional arrangements that support the development of knowledge and innovation networks, particularly those that surround public R&D laboratories. Institutional arrangements include public policies as well as conditions that are necessary to build the proper kind of interactions among organizations. In Mexico, these processes are beginning to develop, in some cases with the support of regional-level policies. Internationally, different policy schemes have proven successful at the local and regional level. Policy development networks, where bottom-up and national and provincial directives interact, are being successfully implemented. In comparing the Mexican and Canadian experiences, some common characteristics can be identified that can lead to the development of adequate environments for innovation networks. Fieldwork reported here has consisted of organizational case studies of R&D laboratories in Mexico and Canada. These case studies include extensive documentation of organizational structure and practices, analysis of strategic planning documents and operating reports, as well as in-depth interviews with researchers, with higher management, and with representatives of organizations with which they interact. Interviews also include government agency officials and representatives of firms that have used or sought to use the laboratories' services. Networks studied include fuel cells technology, medical biotechnology, agro biotechnology, electro chemistry, metal mechanics and software industry, for example. The comparison of several innovation networks in Canada, which are more developed, with those that are beginning to develop in Mexico, enables the identification of viable alternatives for the design and implementation of policy initiatives for their development. Implications for further research and for policy design and implementation are discussed, particularly with respect to the role that R&D labs can play in policy implementation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207