MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413630579 · doi:10.1109/emr.2025.3602394

Canadian Quantum Ecosystem: Lessons From the 5th Workshop on Quantum Computing Entrepreneurship

2025· article· en· W4413630579 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rafael Sotelo, A. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering Management Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsNetwork for Business SustainabilityUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipEcosystemQuantumQuantum computerBusinessEngineering physicsRegional sciencePhysicsGeographyEcologyBiologyQuantum mechanicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is part of a series exploring the unique characteristics and challenges of managing technology teams in emerging fields, with a particular focus on quantum computing [1-5]. The series delves into the experiences of entrepreneurs, researchers, and organizations at the forefront of the quantum revolution, offering insights into team management, innovation, and ecosystem development. Canada's vibrant quantum computing ecosystem is undergoing rapid expansion driven by a combination of government support, world-class academic institutions, and a thriving entrepreneurial community. The 5th Workshop on Quantum Computing Entrepreneurship, held during IEEE Quantum Week 2024, was organized by volunteers from the IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Society (TEMS), IEEE Entrepreneurship, and the Institut quantique. This workshop explored the key pillars of Canada's quantum ecosystem, showcasing the experiences of those driving the quantum revolution. These pillars encompass national and regional organizations that foster ecosystem growth, quantum accelerators that facilitate technology transfer from academia to industry, and the startups driving commercialization. Beyond offering valuable insights into the Canadian quantum ecosystem, this article also highlights fundamental components essential to any quantum ecosystem, given the current maturity of the technology. Readers involved in policy, entrepreneurship, or technology management can apply these lessons to foster quantum ecosystems in their own regions or organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering Management ReviewSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207