Russian Cluster Policy in the Context of Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper studies a profound change in the Russian cluster policy at the federal level based on the analysis of regulatory framework. The work demonstrates virtual abandoning of cluster policies in all areas, i.e. winding-up direct support for industrial cluster projects and failure to start funding complex investment projects for the development of innovative territorial clusters which has even lost their normative basis for financing as well as to backup regional cluster development centers. The main reason for such a reverse is the lack of cooperation among the domestic clusters. At the same time, the main aim of the government efforts in the field of cluster formation and other related processes – stimulation of cooperation projects – has remained unchanged. In order to avoid setbacks in other initiatives for development of such cooperation, it seems advisable to introduce an extended classification of joint cluster projects, which in many ways determines the specifics of partnership relations. The proposed classification is based on the type of connectivity among the participants, the symmetry of the alliances and the organizational form of project implementation. It is shown that the domestic cluster policy deals with the most challenging type of cooperative projects.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".