Spatial Pattern and Evolution of Global Innovation Network from 2000 to 2019: Global Patent Dataset Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of the knowledge economy, the improvement of national innovation systems is playing a significant role in the global entrepreneurship ecosystem. Entrepreneurs are accelerating international intellectual property applications to be competitive. What remains to be explored is the evolution of international intellectual property network in the globe. With the application of social network analysis and intellectual property application database, the global innovation network structure from 2000 to 2019 is explored. Results showed that (1) in the period 2000–2019, the global innovation network has been expanding rapidly from a sparse network to a dense and complex one. (2) Patent application is unevenly distributed in the globe. Countries such as the US, China, and Canada have been the top countries flowing in, while Japan, Korea, EU, and Switzerland have been the main countries flowing out. (3) Global innovation network shows an obvious “core‐periphery” pattern. The distribution pattern presents a quadrilateral structure with the four core regions of “US, Japan, EU, and China” as the apex. This analysis contributes to the visualization of the global layout of intellectual property and the evolution trend by analyzing intellectual property application networks. This can provide important experience reference for enterprises to study the global entrepreneurship ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".