Growth and Development: A Schumpeterian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue... To sustain growth, Canada must engage in a never-ending process of economic development and transformation. To do so, new growth theory indicates that Canada should ensure that competition policy boosts innovation, and that we should beware of further extending patent protection, while welcoming international trade and technological change. The Study in Brief The conflict between winners and losers from new technologies is a recurrent theme in economic history, as demonstrated by the fate of handloom weavers in the early 19th century or the former giants of mainstream computing in the 20th century. A new generation of growth theory, based on Joseph Schumpeter's concept of “creative destruction ” yields a number of insights of surprising currency to Canadians. The new growth theory sees a free enterprise economy as constantly shaken by technological innovations from which some people gain and others lose, an economy in which competition is a struggle and whose survivors are businesses that succeed in creating, adopting, and improving new technologies. Thinking of economic growth in these terms drives several broad conclusions that matter to current
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".