Similarities and differences in the institutional framework of Brazil and Canada: governments as facilitators of private organizations in the aerospace industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative study is focused on the relationships between the institutional environment and the development of the aerospace industry in Brazil and Canada. Based on the theories ofDouglass North and a madel designed by Jone Pearce (2001), we identified the governments of both countries as hostile or supportive as a consequence of their erratic or predictable actions towards the private sector. We also took into consideration the ability of each country to enforce their legal frameworks, a characteristic that will make a government weak or strong. In arder to compare two countries as distinct as Brazil and Canada, we selected six different aspects of the institutional framework of both countries that are essential to the development of high-technology sectors, such as aerospace: intellectual property rights; research & development; government procurement; investments in infrastructure and higher education; financing of extemal sales; and industry regulation (together with other aspects of the legal framework). Once we decided which aspects of the institutional environment were more important to the development of the aerospace industry in Brazil and Canada, we compared how those aspects impacted in the development of Embraer and Bombardier, the powerhouses of the industry in each country and two leading forces in the global aerospace market. Based on structured interviews with representatives of the Brazilian and Canadian governments, industry associations, private corporations, and scholars, we compared the government programs and actions that have the highest impact in the development of the aerospace sector and we point out which initiatives could serve as a madel in the further economie development of Brazil and Canada.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".