Understanding innovation in the context of local economic development: An analysis of cities’ innovation-based policies in Ontario, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad notion of innovation has permeated the consciousness of all levels of government globally. Literature suggests innovation is crucial for solving complex challenges and is essential for economies to maintain their competitiveness. However, there is limited understanding of what cities are doing to foster innovation. Also, it is unknown how local governments define innovation and measure the success of innovation-based policies. To address these gaps, this paper conducts a content analysis of cities’ economic development plans (n = 43) in Ontario, Canada. It finds that most cities, irrespective of size, implemented an array of innovation-based policies. Specific types of innovation-based policies were found to typically be grouped together in economic development plans, with three main policy clusters observed. Interestingly, the results indicate that most economic development plans fail to define innovation and do not employ meaningful metrics to measure the success of innovation-based policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it