MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140902533

비모수적 방법을 이용한 OECD 국가별 R&D 효율성과 생산성 분석

2003· article· ko· W3140902533 on OpenAlex
홍순기 박수동

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue기술혁신연구 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisProductivityEconometricsEconomicsTechnical changeMalmquist indexTechnological changeStock (firearms)Total factor productivitySample (material)Technical progressMathematicsStatisticsMacroeconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the efficiency and productivity of R&D system across time (1991~2000) and 16 OECD countries using multi-output and multi-input non-parametric frontier methods such as DEA (data envelopment analysis) and Malmquist productivity indexes. Malmquist productivity indexes are decomposed into two components measures, namely technical change and efficiency change. To calculate R&D efficiency and productivity, we used R&D stock and the number of researchers as R&D input proxies and the number of adjusted SCI papers and U.S. patent applications as R&D output proxies. Empirical result shows that Switzerland, Canada, U.S., Australia`s R&D efficiencies are the highest and Korea`s R&D productivity growth is the highest in the sample for the period. Technical efficiency growth was a more important source of productivity growth than technological innovation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.008

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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