The Comparison of Basic Science Research Capacity of OECD Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new measurement technique to derive the level of BSRC (Basic Science and Research Capacity) index by use of the factor analysis which is extended with the assumption of the standard normal probability distribution of the selected explanatory variables. The new measurement method is used to forecast the gap of Korea`s BSRC level compared with those of major OECD countries in terms of time lag and to make their international comparison during the time period of 1981-l999, based on the assumption that the BSRC progress function of each country takes the form of the logistic curve. The US BSRC index is estimated to be 0.9878 in 1981, 0.9996 in 1990 and 0.99992 in 1999, taking the 1st place. The US BSRC level has been consistently the top among the 16 selected variables, followed by Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, in order. Korea`s BSRC is estimated to be 0.2293 in 1981, taking the lowest place among the 16 OECD countries. However, Korea`s BSRC indices are estimated to have been increased to 0.3216 (in 1990) and 0.44652 (in 1999) respectively, taking 10th place. Meanwhile, Korea`s BSRC level in 1999 (0.44652) is estimated to reach those of the US and Japan in 2233 and 2101, respectively. This means that Korea falls 234 years behind USA and 102 years behind Japan, respectively. Korea is also estimated to lag 34 years behind Germany, 16 years behind France and the UK, 15 years behind Sweden, 11 years behind Canada, 7 years behind Finland, and 5 years behind the Netherlands. For the period of 1981-1999, the BSRC development speed of the US is estimated to be 0.29700. Its rank is the top among the selected OECD countries, followed by Japan (0.12800), Korea 0.04443), and Germany (0.04029). The US BSRC development speed (0.2970) is estimated to be 2.3 times higher than that of Japan (0.1280), and 6.7 times higher than that of Korea. German BSRC development speed (0.04029) is estimated to be fastest in Europe, but it is 7.4 times slower than that of the US. The estimated BSRC development speeds of Belgium, Finland, Italy, Denmark and the UK stand between 0.01 and 0.02, which are very slow. Particularly, the BSRC development speed of Spain is estimated to be minus 0.0065, staying at the almost same level of BSRC over time (1981-1999). Since Korea shows BSRC development speed much slower than those of the US and Japan but relatively faster than those of other countries, the gaps in BSRC level between Korea and the other countries may get considerably narrower or even Korea will surpass possibly several countries in BSRC level, as time goes by. Korea`s BSRC level had taken 10th place till 199. However, it is estimated to be 6th place in 2010 by catching up the UK, Sweden, Finland and Holland, and 4th place in 2020 by catching up France and Canada. The empirical results are consistent with OECD (2001a)`s computation that Korea had the highest RD and the value-added of ICT industries in total business sectors value added is 12% in Korea, but only 8% in Japan. And OECD (2001b) observed that Korea, together with the US, Sweden, and Finland, are already the four most knowledge-based countries. Hence, the rank of the knowledge-based country was measured by investment in knowledge which is defined as public and private spending on higher education, expenditures on R&D and investment in software.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".