MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impacts of Industry 4.0 in developed countries & BRICs

2025· article· en· W4407105869 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Rodrigues de Sousa, Jorge Muniz, Marta Lígia Pomim Valentim, Liane Mählmann Kipper, Elaine Mosconi, Márcio Giannini Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueGestão & Produção · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsBusinessEconomic geographyInternational tradeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper aims to compare I4.0 manufacturing countries, providing an overview of the most relevant issues related to their patent and exportation figures. The countries researched are Germany, Brazil, China, South Korea, the US, India, Japan, and Russia. A Literature analysis was applied in Scopus and Web of Science publications (2012–2022), which include BRICs countries. Patent records related to high-tech products Patentscope of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the list of exported products in TradeMap were also searched to identify and analyze the contribution of each country’s policies. Findings present the positive effects of I4.0 policies in the industrial context of most countries, as evidenced by an increase in exportation and patents related to manufacturing high-tech goods since the policies were implemented after 2014. Patent registration evolution refers to the evolution of high-technology goods in the last nine years. This study also indicates the motivations of each country for implementing Industry 4.0. A country comparison of the durations, objectives, available funding, areas for action, focused manufacturing sectors, and prioritized technologies of these public policies supports researchers, managers, and policymakers.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestão & ProduçãoSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207