INTERNAL R&D AND EXTERNAL INFORMATION IN KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE BUSINESS SERVICE INNOVATION: COMPLEMENTS, SUBSTITUTES OR INDEPENDENT?
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 paper analyses the effect of internal R&D and of external sources of information on the innovation performance of Knowledge intensive business services (KIBS). The analysis is based on an establishment-level survey covering the period of 2011–2014 in Canada (Quebec). In order to determine the influence of different external information sources on innovation and the extent to which internal R&D and the use of external information sources are related to innovation, a series of logistic regressions are performed on four different measures of innovation. The results show that KIBS innovation is positively connected to market-related information sources (but not to research and academic sources), that KIBS innovation is positively associated with the performance of R&D, and that there are no synergies associated with the combined performance of R&D and external information gathering: their effects are independent and additive. These results share some similarities, but also some important differences, with those that have been obtained from the study of R&D and external information sourcing in manufacturing establishments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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