MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164579996 · doi:10.1080/2157930x.2021.1932062

Catching-up national innovations systems (NIS) in China and post-catching-up NIS in Korea and Taiwan: verifying the detour hypothesis and policy implications

2021· article· en· W3164579996 on OpenAlexaff
Jong-Ho Lee, Keun Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation and Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersAcademy of Korean Studies
KeywordsChinaNational innovation systemNational PolicyPolitical scienceEconomic growthRegional scienceDevelopment economicsEconomicsBusinessInternational tradeEconomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the relationship between national innovation systems (NIS) and economic catch-up by latecomer economies, such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Contemporary China is found to also specialize in short cycle technologies, similar to Korea or Taiwan in the mid-1980s and 1990s, featuring opposite attributes from mature NIS. By contrast, Korea and Taiwan are moving away from short-cycle technologies into long cycle technologies-based sectors, and their NIS are becoming similar to those of advanced or mature NIS. Thus, this study verifies the so-called ‘detour’ hypothesis that a successful catching-up economy can follow a technological detour of first specializing in short cycle sectors and only later turning into more challenging or long cycle technology-based sectors. In addition, the linkage from such detour to economic growth performance is verified, confirming a positive relationship between moving into short cycle technologies and economic growth in China, and between going into long cycle technologies and economic growth in Korea and Taiwan for the post-catch-up stages or since the 2000s.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation and DevelopmentSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207