Science and Business Cooperation. Barriers in Poland Within the Context of Selected European and North American Countries
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
This article focuses on the theoretical and empirical analysis of factors affecting the cooperation between science and business. The author will present the results of empirical research conducted in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, France, Norway, the United States of America and Canada. The analysis will indicate how and which factors: structural, systemic, competence or awareness and cultural can be utilised in the commercialisation of knowledge and technologies. The analysis of research outcomes which underpins this study is also set on the following assumptions: \n \nEvery country has different barriers to cooperation between scientists and entrepreneurs; \nPolish scientists and entrepreneurs should rely on proven and significant factors conducive to cooperation between science and business in Poland; \nAcademic centres in Poland can benefit from the experience gained by other countries to intensify its model of cooperation with entrepreneurs. \nThe article will showcase the research results that relate to the identification of selected problems occurring in establishing and maintaining cooperation between Polish scientific research organisations and entrepreneurs in the context of selected countries whose respondents were subject to empirical research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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