Reform and Redesign: A Review of the Changing Role of the Public Purposes in R&D and Technology Institutes (Working Paper 17)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the globalization of knowledge has taken hold over the past decade, and as \ngovernments around the world review their new roles in support of the production of knowledge, \nseveral factors have shaped the context in governments’ approach to public research. Arguably, none \nhas been more affected by these pressures for reform than government scientific and technology \nlaboratories or institutes. Often ignored in the re-shaping of national systems of innovation, these \norganizations play an important role in advancing national economic and social objectives. This \npaper, by reviewing examples of reforms underway in several countries, including Canada, France, \nGermany, the UK, Japan, USA and Latin America, will argue that government research and technology \ninstitutes — often historically surrogates for industrial research — are gradually re-defining their \nmandates to meet the new pressures of globalization as well as satisfying growing public demands \nfor increased relevance and efficiency in responding to citizens’ and industry needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".