Gender-related aspects of invention networks: A firm-level analysis
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
This paper integrates insights from the literature on invention networks, gender, and the sociological literature to analyze differences in how firms participate in man-led and woman-led invention networks. We contribute to the current debate on whether clustering or boundary-spanning network properties are more important for invention by introducing gender as an important factor. We empirically test our hypotheses on a sample of more than 30,000 firms from around the world over time using OECD REGPAT global patent data. Our findings indicate that different network properties are important for firm invention in woman-led and man-led innovation networks. In man-led invention networks, firms strongly benefit from being in a boundary-spanning position and are negatively affected by clustering, whereas in woman-led invention networks, boundary spanning has a less pronounced positive effect, and clustering has a positive rather than negative effect. Our findings have substantial implications for firms and policymakers interested in invention and contribute to the studies of gender and invention networks. • Investigates how gender shapes the impact of network positions on invention outcomes. • Finds that clustering and boundary spanning affect invention differently across team genders. • Shows that cohesion can enhance invention performance depending on team composition. • Constructs innovation networks from global patent data. • Provides guidance for firms aiming to design inclusive, innovation-oriented collaborations.
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 | 0.000 | 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