{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015933232169954476, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002276176024279211, 'mean_word_length': 5.434146341463415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Science Parks as Economic Development Policy: A Case Study Approach

Many state and local economic development groups have attempted to create environments that are conducive to the expansion and growth of "high-tech" industry clusters based on the commonly held notion that high-tech clusters offer advantages over other types of industrial activity. There have been numerous attempts to recreate the perceived important elements of the developmental environment that sparked and fostered the growth of the Boston Route 128 and Silicon Valley high-tech clusters. One widely used approach in this regard has been the creation of a focused university-related research park This article uses the results of a recent survey of high-technology firms in Orlando, Florida to compare and contrast the characteristics of firms that have located in a university-related research park with high-tech firms that operate in other parts of the metropolitan area. In general, the survey revealed substantial differences between these two categories of high-tech firms, extending across many dimensions of firm structure and development. Additionally, the survey reveals some similarities in the organizational structure of firms located in Orlando's Central Florida Research Park and firms at North Carolina's Research Triangle Park