Network versus spatial proximity and firm innovation: The case of the R&D service sector
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
Abstract The paper analyzes the relationship between different types of proximities—network and spatial—in relation to innovation in the context of the R&D service industry. In doing so, it contributes to the recent debate in the literature on the effects of network connectivity versus geographical colocation. The paper uses original data from a survey of 145 R&D service establishments in Montreal (Canada) and their interactions with both local and nonlocal organizations. The findings of the paper indicate that collaborative networks (both local and nonlocal) have a stronger association with R&D service innovation than spatial proximity to R&D service organizations and other collaborators. However, when these two dimensions are interacted, they are shown to function as substitutes. The paper also demonstrates that the relationship between spatial proximity and networking varies across three dimensions: local versus nonlocal networking, the type of relationship (client, supplier, competitor, and research institutes and university), and the type of network connectivity—brokerage versus closure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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