MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808263256 · doi:10.5539/res.v10n3p55

Book Review: Innovation in Developing and Transition Countries - New Horizons in Regional Science Series

2018· article· en· W2808263256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Buheji, Dunya Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrencyDeveloping countryWork (physics)Transition countriesNew horizonsIndex (typography)Transition (genetics)Set (abstract data type)Developed countryBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyInternational economicsEngineeringComputer scienceMacroeconomicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gap between developed countries and developing countries are increasing, rather than decreasing as it was hoped and expected in the beginning of the century. This gap is clearly reflected in the Global Innovation Index 2017. Countries in transition or in emerging economies are taking long time to figure out how to deal with innovation as currency and source of differentiation. (Buheji, 2018a).In this review, the innovation of developing countries and those in transitions is reviewed closely through the work of Tsvetkova et. al (2017). A close recommendation is set in the conclusion of this paper about future coming work that would help developed the efforts of the concerned academics, practitioners, innovation advocates and decision makers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.008

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207