Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this paper I examine strategic policy for product R&D in an international duopoly where domestic and foreign firms are identical. It is shown that strategic R&D policy is described by a subsidy schedule contingent on firms’ quality choices. Unilateral policy enables its domestic firm to produce a high‐quality product, making equilibrium outcome unique. With two active governments, in equilibrium they implement different subsidy schedules. Two equilibrium outcomes exist, which are identical except for the identity of the countries. Thus, both countries have an equal chance to become the high‐quality exporter. Both Bertrand and Cournot cases are examined. JEL classification: F12, F13 Politique stratégique pour le R&D dans le développement de nouveaux produits quand les coûts sont symétriques. Ce mémoire examine la politique stratégique pour le R&D dans le développement de produits nouveaux dans un duopole international où les entreprises domestique et étrangère sont identiques. On montre que cette politique est décrite par cédules de subventions qui dépendent des choix du niveau de qualité des entreprises. Une politique unilatérale permet à l’entreprise domestique de manufacturer un produit de haute qualité– ce qui engendre des résultats d’équilibre uniques. Si deux gouvernements sont actifs, en équilibre, ils mettent en place des cédules de subventions différentes. Deux résultats d’équilibre existent qui sont identiques sauf pour l’identité des pays. Donc les deux pays ont une chance égale de devenir l’exportateur du produit de haute qualité. On examine les cas de figure à la Bertrand et à la Cournot.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".