MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987450838 · doi:10.23919/picmet.2019.8893726

The Emergence of the Personalized Medicine Innovation Ecosystem in British Columbia: Selective Revealing, Strategic Timing and Success

2019· article· en· W2987450838 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Park, Elicia Maine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalized medicineCommercializationOpen innovationBusinessValue (mathematics)Knowledge managementMarketingComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized medicine is a growing subsector within medicine and biotechnology, having become a new subdomain of research within the traditional biotechnology industry. This study aims to identify, classify and analyze the emergence of the personalized medicine innovation ecosystem in British Columbia in order to inform innovation policy. We draw on and contribute to the Innovation Ecosystems and the Open Innovation literatures by examining the emergence of the personalized medicine industry in British Columbia, and the commercialization patterns and strategies of the firms within it. In this paper we identify and study the formation, open innovation mechanisms, financing and value creation of companies with technologies related to personalized medicine. Of the 94 PM firms founded in B.C., 64 are currently active, with 48% in therapeutics, 38% in diagnostics, and 14% in digital health. We find evidence of the importance of the Open Innovation mechanisms of selective revealing and of strategic timing to value creation by personalized medicine ventures.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207