MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184372617 · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104315

A new tool for policymakers: Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem

2021· article· en· W3184372617 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueResearch Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIncentiveTypologyBusinessAnalyticsEmerging marketsEcosystemEconomicsData scienceSociologyComputer scienceEcologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecosystems are typically evaluated and understood using standard visible material metrics, such as new products, patents, startups, VC funding, jobs, and successful exits. Yet emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEEs) provide many possibilities for members not signaled by such visible markers. Consequently, policymakers may have a difficult time making informed decisions about incentives and regulations to foster economic growth through ecosystem emergence. To address this methods and measurement issue, we conceptualize emerging systems using both cultural and material approaches to develop a comparative typology and apply it to an emerging regional ecosystem growing around artificial intelligence (AI). We render cultural and material maps using topic modeling of Twitter feeds versus well-placed others, identify strategies in each, and discuss relevant policies for enhancing EEEs to realize various economic opportunities. This method adds to policy analytics and suggests policies for building cultural infrastructure in EEEs.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.235 · 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