MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W117323632

¡°Made with the world¡± vs. ¡°Made for the world¡±: What would be the future of ¡°Made in China¡± products?

2013· article· es· W117323632 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Corporation Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaOrder (exchange)Production (economics)Division of labourValue (mathematics)Product (mathematics)World marketInternational marketBusinessPoliticsInternational tradeCommerceEconomicsMarket economyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues thatthe dramatic growth of "Made in China" products is primarily a consequence of political will of the Chinese authorities to take advantage of the new international division of labor for its development. Until now, "Made in China" products should be more qualified with "Made with China" products than "Made by China" products.In many cases, they are the result of a globally organized production, involving activities realized in different countries. As the development of "Made in China" products has a lot of impacts on the global economic order, only efforts of China to shift from "China price" to "China value" or "Chinese brand" cannot guarantee the future success of "Made in China" in an international market. The future of "Made in China" seems to go rather "Made with the World" than "Made for the World".

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it