MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122232577 · doi:10.1111/jems.12048

Behind the Scenes: Sources of Complementarity in R&D

2014· article· en· W3122232577 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economics & Management Strategy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplementarity (molecular biology)Economies of scopeAbsorptive capacityPanel dataIndustrial organizationBusinessScope (computer science)MicroeconomicsEconomicsMonetary economicsEconometricsComputer scienceEconomies of scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management consultants increasingly recommend that internal R&D be outsourced; however, little is known about the substitution or complementarity between internal and external R&D. Through structural estimation of a flexible innovation production function we provide a deeper understanding of firm‐level drivers of complementarity between these two types of investments. Our analysis is based on a unique panel data set on the R&D and in‐licensing expenditures of pharmaceutical firms. Our results suggest that internal R&D and in‐licensing are neither complements nor substitutes. We find that the degree of complementarity is enhanced for firms with stronger absorptive capacity, economies of scope, and licensing experience.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.185 · 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