MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121348516

The Determinants of R&D Expenditures: A Study of the Canadian Biotechnology Industry

2000· article· en· W3121348516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey G. MacIntosh, Douglas J. Cumming

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)DebtEquity (law)MultitudeEconomicsBusinessFinancePolitical scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative importance of a multitude of factors for the allocation of expenses towards R&D are assessed in an empirical study of the Canadian biotechnology industry. The results show that patent protection and strategic alliances facilitate R&D spending. The results also show that early-stage firms spend a greater proportion of their expenditures on R&D, while firms engaged in R&D in platform technologies and firms with high debt-equity ratios spend a lower proportion of their expenditures on R&D. Demand pull and competition variables are insignificant factors. Finally, counter to our expectations, R&D expenditures are more intensive among firms engaged in R&D in areas in which consumer controversies are more pronounced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207