The Study on the Self-organization Behavior about Enterprises Cluster
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
It appears to be a new approach of study that adopting the theory of nonlinear self-organization on the study of enterprises cluster. The emergence, development and growth of enterprises cluster can be satisfactorily analyzed in the theory of self-organization. The theory of self-organization originated from system theory is a result of transition from system theory to nonlinear science of complexity, and a theory of study on self-organization phenomena and laws. Dissipative structure theory deeply unearths the birth environment and conditions of self-organization and lays the foundation for the theory of self-organization; and synergetics theory intends to explain the process in which a system evolves from disorderliness to orderliness, which is essentially a process of self-organization inside the system. Synergy is a form and mean of self-organization. As a social system, enterprises cluster is a complex aggregation of multiple factors, themes and relations, has a series of conditions for self-organization, and its evolution is driven by the synergy among all the subsystems inside the system. On the whole, the process of synergetic evolution is normally the development from the evolution of competitive synergy to the evolution of cooperative synergy.Key words: Self-organization; Enterprises Cluster; Dissipativ Structure; The theory of synergetics; mechanism of evolution
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 it