MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative?

2009· article· en· W3124341533 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyMatching (statistics)IncentiveProduct (mathematics)Parametric statisticsTax creditEstimatorEconomicsPublic economicsBusinessIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsEconometricsActuarial scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper looks at the effectiveness of R&D grants for Canadian plants that already benefit from R&D tax credits. Using a non‐parametric matching estimator and data from the 2005 Survey of Innovation from Statistics Canada, we find that firms that benefited from both policy measures introduced more new products than their counterparts that only benefited from R&D tax incentives. They also made more world‐first product innovations and were more successful in commercializing their innovations. The paper gives also a detailed step‐by‐step explanation of how to apply the non‐parametric matching technique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.027 · 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