MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561818194 · doi:10.1504/ijipm.2016.079584

An assessment of Canadian university technology transfer offices

2016· article· en· W2561818194 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stuart J. Smyth, Alphanso Williams, Julian Vasilescu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Intellectual Property Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGenome PrairieGenome Canada
KeywordsTechnology transferTransfer (computing)BusinessTelecommunicationsEngineering managementEngineeringComputer scienceInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reports from the past decade have reported that Canada is a highly innovative country, but suffers from a bottleneck in technology transfer and commercialisation. In fact, many of the reports give Canada a failing grade when it comes to the commercialisation of innovation technologies. With substantial investments into public sector research, such a problem would reduce the public good from government funding of innovative research. The objective of this article is to assess a Canadian university's technology transfer activities from 1998 to 2008.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0220.028
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Intellectual Property ManagementSame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207