Competitive strategies of positioning of countries in nanotechnology
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
In the long run, nanotechnology can make revolutionary breakthroughs that will have profound economic consequences. Therefore, the projection of competition and positioning strategies of countries is of great importance for the evaluation of the role of individual countries in nanotechnology in the future. The aim of this paper is to determine how the observed countries - The U.S., Canada, Germany, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, India, Australia and Brazil behaved while maintaining or changing their competitive status in nanotechnology. It was found that without simultaneous strategy of intensifying nanotechnology activity and the power of technological development, the achieved competitive status of the country in nanotechnology does not guarantee a place in the competitive group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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