Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although they areoften overlooked,innovative medium-sized firms (100-499 employees) in Canada can provide insightfor other firms that may help them to find their way in the global marketplaceand improve their productivity. This report seeks to explore the innovation capabilities and performance of these Canadian firms. Data used in the analysis were collected from a variety of sources,including the Statistics Canada's Longitudinal Employment Analysis Program,interviews with firm executives, and a literature review. Focusing on the manufacturing industry, the medium-sized firms were divided according toemployee growth rates as follows: high-growth, growth, stable, anddeclining. Innovation capabilities and performance are measured for each of thegroups.In all of the measurements, the high-growth firms produced the best results. Although the reasons for the dominance of the high-growth firms have not been confirmed, there are two factors that are believed to contribute to these firms' success -- superior institutional capabilities and a work force with superior technical capabilities. For the Canadian economy,the focus should be on creating and developing more innovative firms as opposed to growing small firms into large firms. (SRD)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".