MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122656238

Comparing the Innovation Performance in Canadian, French and German Manufacturing Enterprises

2005· preprint· en· W3122656238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Mohnen, Pierre Therrien

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)GermanEconomicsYardstickWelfare economicsEconometricsIndustrial organizationGeographyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude compare les performances d'innovation entre le Canada et la France d'une part, et entre le Canada et l'Allemagne d'autre part. La comparaison repose sur deux modèles de probit ordonné avec sélection. Le premier mesure l'innovation par l'introduction sur le marché de produits nouveaux pour la firme, le second par l'introduction de produits nouveaux pour le marché. L'analyse économétrique essaye d'expliquer une partie des différences nationales d'innovation par la composition sectorielle de la production, l'effet taille, les conditions environnementales (proximité de la recherche de base et concurrence) et les activités d'innovation (R-D interne, nombre d'activités innovantes, coopération et support gouvernemental). Les firmes canadiennes tirent avantage de leur plus grande taille et sont plus nombreuses à recevoir du support gouvernemental. Par contre, elles souffrent du manque de concurrence et de R-D interne. Au total, la prise en compte de ces effets structurels est certes révélatrice, mais n'explique qu'une faible partie des différences bilatérales dans les processus d'innovation. La mesure plus forte d'innovation par l'introduction de produits nouveaux pour le marché réduit les différences observées et les explique un peu mieux.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.287
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207