MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121498171

Doing R&D In A Closed Or Open Mode: Dynamics And Impacts On Productivity

2013· article· en· W3121498171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julio M. de la Rosa, Pierre Mohnen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionExternalityHumanitiesEconomicsWelfare economicsEconometricsMathematicsMicroeconomicsStatisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the one hand, firms prefer to perform R&D in an open mode (letting R&D be performed extramurally or even selling their R&D services) to benefit from knowledge spillovers and complementarities between internal and external R&D. On the other hand, they may also like to perform R&D in a closed mode (funding and executing their R&D intramurally) to minimize outgoing externalities. We examine the dynamic process by which firms change the way of doing R&D and how these strategic choices of doing R&D affect their productivity growth. This study is based on the Statistics Canada Research and Development in Canadian Industry survey (RDCI), which collects data on R&D performed in the business sector in Canada. The paper is based on data for the period 1997 to 2006. The panel dimension of the data allows to control for unobserved characteristics of R&D performers by estimating a multinomial Logit model with unobserved heterogeneities using maximum simulated likelihood (MSL) method. Les firmes sont tiraillées entre deux façons de faire de la R-D. D'un côté, elles préfèrent faire la R-D de manière ouverte (en faisant faire de la R-D extramuros ou même en vendant des services de R-D) afin de bénéficier d'externalités de connaissance et de complémentarités entre la R-D interne et la R-D externe. D'un autre côté, elles préconisent de faire la R-D en mode fermé (en faisant de la recherche intramuros et en se finançant sur base de fonds propres ou de subventions) afin de minimiser les fuites de connaissance. Dans cette étude, nous examinons la dynamique des choix quant à la façon de faire de la recherche et l'effet de ces choix sur les rendements de celle-ci. Nous nous basons sur les données de l'enquête de Statistique Canada sur la recherche et développement dans l'industrie canadienne (RDIC) pour la période 1997-2006. La dimension panel de la base de données nous permet de contrôler pour l'hétérogénéité individuelle inobservée dans l'estimation d'un modèle Logit multinomial dynamique à partir de la méthode du maximum de vraisemblance simulé.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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