IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/24075.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying the Differences in Innovation Processes in China, Japan and the United States by Document Level Concordance between Patents and Web Contents

Author

Listed:
  • MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki
  • ZHU Chen

Abstract

While innovation performance at country level has been analyzed using a variety of STI indicators, the relationship between them such as the patent-new product relationship is under-investigated. Historically, the relationship between technology and industrial output has been analyzed using technology-industry concordance matrices, but the granularity of output information is bounded by the industrial classification system. In this study, we use the text information in both patent and product-related keywords extracted from company’s web site contents to come up with detailed concordance information between technology and products, and compare them across three countries, China, Japan and the United States. First, we apply a dual attention model to extract product/service information from web page information. Then, using the textual information of both patent abstracts and product/service keywords, we develop a machine learning model to predict products/services from a particular type of technology. Then, we use this transformation model (from technology to product) to understand the difference in innovation processes of the three countries.

Suggested Citation

  • MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki & ZHU Chen, 2024. "Quantifying the Differences in Innovation Processes in China, Japan and the United States by Document Level Concordance between Patents and Web Contents," Discussion papers 24075, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:24075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/24e075.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    2. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    3. Samuel Kortum & Jonathan Putnam, 1997. "Assigning Patents to Industries: Tests of the Yale Technology Concordance," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 161-176.
    4. repec:iab:iabfme:201707(en is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jan Kinne & Janna Axenbeck, 2020. "Web mining for innovation ecosystem mapping: a framework and a large-scale pilot study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2011-2041, December.
    6. Daniel K. N. Johnson, 2002. "The OECD Technology Concordance (OTC): Patents by Industry of Manufacture and Sector of Use," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2002/5, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Zhu, Chen, 2023. "Identifying technology opportunity using dual-attention model and technology-market concordance matrix," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. repec:iab:iabfme:201707(en is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    4. Raphael Auer & Philip Sauré, 2011. "Spatial Competition in Quality, Demand Induced Innovation, and Schumpeterian Growth," DEGIT Conference Papers c016_067, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    5. Jürgen Peters, 2000. "Buyer Market Power and Innovative Activities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 16(1), pages 13-38, February.
    6. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    7. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 1998. "Technological evolution -- an analysis within the knowledge-based approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 85-107, March.
    8. Yongrae Cho & Wonjoon Kim, 2014. "Technology–industry networks in technology commercialization: evidence from Korean university patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1785-1810, March.
    9. Stephen D Billington & Alan J Hanna, 2021. "That’s classified! Inventing a new patent taxonomy [Text matching to measure patent similarity]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(3), pages 678-705.
    10. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2021. "Risk-Mitigating Technologies: The Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3022-3040, May.
    11. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    12. Jonathan T. Eckhardt, 2016. "Welcome contributor or no price competitor? The competitive interaction of free and priced technologies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 742-762, April.
    13. Hu, Albert Guangzhou, 2010. "Propensity to patent, competition and China's foreign patenting surge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 985-993, September.
    14. Eckhardt, Jonathan T. & Shane, Scott A., 2011. "Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 412-430, July.
    15. Dorner, Matthias & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2018. "A novel technology-industry concordance table based on linked inventor-establishment data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 768-781.
    16. Marie-Claude BELIS-BERGOUIGNAN, 2009. "An evolutionist analysis of sectoral dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    17. Köhler, Christian & Rammer, Christian, 2012. "Buyer power and suppliers' incentives to innovate," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-058, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    19. Laursen, Keld, 1999. "The impact of technological opportunity on the dynamics of trade performance," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3-4), pages 341-357, December.
    20. Travis J. Lybbert & Nikolas J. Zolas, 2012. "Getting Patents & Economic Data to Speak to Each Other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ Approach for Joint Analyses of Patenting & Economic Activity," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 05, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Oct 2012.
    21. Dorner, Matthias & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2018. "A novel technology-industry concordance table based on linked inventor-establishment data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 768-781.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:24075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.