MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773953495 · doi:10.1093/scipol/scx079

The role of emerging technologies in inclusive innovation: the case of nanotechnology in South Africa†

2017· article· en· W2773953495 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEquity (law)Emerging technologiesWorkforceDisadvantagedBusinessNanotechnologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusive innovation seeks to understand how new technologies can provide benefits for the poor and marginalized. However, the role emerging technologies might play in inclusive innovation is not well understood. We synthesize inclusive innovation frameworks with work on equity and emerging technologies by examining the South African National Nanotechnology Strategy. Through document analysis and interviews, we find that some nanotechnology projects address problems of poor communities. The future nanotechnology workforce also reflects South Africa’s diversity. Nanotechnology research supports existing businesses and has helped create some new firms, which might increase employment. Overall, the effort created nanotechnology innovation that is somewhat inclusive in its intent, impact, process, and structure. However, innovation could be more inclusive and just by focusing more on technology transfer systems for disadvantaged communities and on rural development. The case illustrates that combining inclusive innovation and equity frameworks provides more specific policy pathways and deeper understanding of justice.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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