Exploring high-tech specializations with the use of metadata: evidence from the metropolitan clusters of Paris and Toronto
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
High-tech companies, sectors and hubs are recognized as important drivers of economic growth, innovation and productivity; however, the conventional administrative datasets and industry codes have proved to be often inadequate when it comes to properly detect and analyse new technological domains. In this paper, we propose a simple approach and suggest a promising data source that can be used to identify the most relevant high-tech specializations existing in a certain region, such as an innovative metropolitan cluster; importantly, it highlights the emerging complementarities between technological domains, which can represent the starting point for cooperation and synergies between companies presenting different core activities but also some degree of common knowledge. Hence, this unconventional mapping of a technological landscape can provide useful information to companies, and also to policymakers who intend to support high-tech businesses and sectors. To implement the proposed approach, we use first-hand information on firms’ main products, markets and technologies and implement the tool of network analysis, which we apply to two particularly promising technological hubs, namely, the metropolitan clusters of Paris and Toronto.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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