Stimulating Innovation: Is Canada Pursuing the Right Policies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a global survey of over 800 innovative firms, a new framework has been developed by the authors to understand innovation. Using the perspective of the innovators to explain the diversity of the strategies behind business innovation, they identified six broad patterns called games of innovation around which innovations are structured. The article points out that this framework raises significant issues about the effectiveness of current Canadian innovation policies. In light of the productivity challenges that Canada faces, which appear to be largely related to innovation, the framework also provides useful insights into future directions for public policies. RÉSUMÉ Sur la base d'une enquête auprès de plus de 800 entreprises innovatrices de partout dans le monde, un nouveau cadre conceptuel a été développé par les auteurs pour mieux saisir le phénomène de l'innovation. Empruntant la perspective des innovateurs, ce cadre conceptuel explique la diversité des stratégies d'innovation par la présence de six modèles ou”jeux d'innovation”. L'article indique que ce cadre conceptuel soulève de nombreuses questions
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".