MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7046675077

Developing an innovation engine to make Canada a global leader in cybersecurity

2013· article· en· W7046675077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Product (mathematics)Innovation managementResource (disambiguation)Quality (philosophy)New product developmentProduct innovationFocus (optics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An engine designed to convert innovation into a country’s global leadership position in a specific product market is examined in this article, using Canada and cybersecurity as an example. Five entities are core to the innovation engine: an ecosystem, a project community, an external community, a platform, and a corporation. The ecosystem is the focus of innovation in firm-specific factors that determine outcomes in global competition; the project community is the focus of innovation in research and development; and the external community is the focus of innovation in resources produced and used by economic actors that operate outside of the focal product market. Strategic intent, governance, resource flows, and organizational agreements bind the five entities together. Operating the innovation engine in Canada is expected to improve the level and quality of prosperity, security, and capacity of Canadians, increase the number of Canadian-based companies that successfully compete globally in cybersecurity product markets, and better protect Canada’s critical infrastructure. Researchers interested in learning how to create, implement, improve, and grow innovation engines will find this article interesting. The article will also be of interest to senior management teams in industry and government, chief information and technology officers, social and policy analysts, academics, and individual citizens who wish to learn how to secure cyberspace.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207