COMMENTS ON PUBLIC POLICY SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There seems to be an emerging two-group classification among advanced economies. In the first group one finds the most innovative countries and in the second the most efficient imitative countries. Canada appears, according to some indices, to be entrenched in the second group. Although Canada has benefited from a significant growth in GDP per capita, it has slipped down among advanced economies. The problem with this relative performance is that the second group of countries is bound to experience slower growth because of the strong “commodity” competition, which is typically present in the second group, preventing a significant net value creation to appear. According to some business observers and commentators, an increasing number of countries have emerged as global innovators over the past 15 years. Although the number of countries capable of global innovations is growing, major differences persist among advanced economies. The Innovative Capacity index and the Business Competitiveness index of the World Economic Forum measure the ability of a country, as both a political and economic entity, to produce and commercialize a flow of new-to-the-world technologies over the long term. The indexes aims to characterize fundamental determinants of the innovation process: first, the presence of a strong
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".