## 5 Discussion and Validation
Therefore, it seems logical to assume that, for the three groups, although they generally remain intact in terms of what defines their characteristics/features, in the case of the hybrid group, the analysis conducted suggests that this grouping needs to extend to SPs and TPs that do not display the typical behaviour of their original group. The proportional groupings are presented next:  
* 11 SPs, representing 73% of the initial sample of 15 SPs;
* 25 TPs, representing 86% of the initial sample of 29 TPs;
* 13 HPs, representing 100% of the initial sample of 4 HPs, plus 4 SPs with behaviour like the TP type, plus 5 TPs with behaviour like the SP type. Finally, there are three times the amount of HPs compared to the original sample. The new HP category should be broadened to include not only a balance between the university and the government sector in the promotion and management of the STP, but also other unique situations that lead to a better balance between the features purely associated with SPs, including university influence, and those associated with TPs. Therefore, the original definition could be revised. Expert labelling is a good starting point for classifying STPs and the subsequent descriptive and data analysis presented in this work gives a complementary point of view of the real situation and allows a more accurate classification of the STP's type. The representation of this situation is presented in Figure 8 below, where STP types from expert labelling are compared with the final classification after this work's analysis. Other studies have broadly analysed heterogeneity in the types of STPs [20; 21; 22; 23; 24]. [PERSON] et al. [20]. found that 20% of Spanish STPs are SPs, which is consistent with the results obtained in this study. [PERSON] et al. [18]. state that 37% of Italian ETPs would be TPs, which is significantly lower than in the Spanish case. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [23], in a sample of 51 American STPs, found that 31% were SPs, which is also close to the Spanish results. At the other extreme, apparently, all UK STPs are university science parks, located in or near the institution itself [22]. The proposed in-depth analysis methodology allows for a more accurate classification of each STP, which, in turn, also enables the activation of informed decision-making mechanisms that can improve its performance (e.g., by benchmarking against its prototype STP to target the features that need to be improved). This in-depth study is planned for other geographical regions. So far, it has only been possible to replicate it for the Argentinean case, where a comparative study has also been established for the Spanish case [24]. In Argentina, three types of STPs are also validated, the proportion being: 41% SPs, 17% HPsm and 42% TPs. Therefore, SPs are proportionally more numerous than in Spain. The prototype characteristics obtained for the Argentinean case focus on the size and number of companies. The SPs are significantly larger than the TPs, although with a smaller number of companies, more focused on biotechnology or chemical sectors compared to the TPs, which have a larger number of companies focused on ICT. Therefore, SO2 has been achieved and validated, as this study suggests the presence of three STP types with distinct characteristics. * SO3: To know the main and typical features of the different types of STPs. SPs and TPs can be typified. With respect to a qualitative representation of the average features for SPs and TPs, the following Figure 9 is presented, where only the core features with significant differences among STP types are included:  
Complementarily, a quantitative description with some relevant core features can be established based on the data analysis using machine learning (Section 4.2) and the following typical values can be presented:  
* The typical Spanish SP presents a surface area (Fe03) under 200,000 m\({}^{2}\), the incubation ratio \(>\) 0.14 being the reference average of 0.34.