MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539012900 · doi:10.1177/001979391306600301

Multinational Companies in Cross-National Context: Integration, Differentiation, and the Interactions between MNCS and Nation States

2013· article· en· W1539012900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Edwards, Paul Marginson, Anthony Ferner

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial and Labor Relations Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsMultinational corporationFraming (construction)Foreign direct investmentBusinessContext (archaeology)ChartPolitical scienceGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the introductory article to a special issue on multinational corporations (MNCs) and employment practices, the authors highlight the key features of an international survey research project. Research teams carried out parallel surveys in four countries: Canada, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys are the most comprehensive investigations of the employment practices in MNCs in their respective countries. In framing the comparative analysis of these data, the teams had four objectives: (1) to explore the processes of integration and differentiation in MNCs, including the interactions among MNCs and nation states and their impact on employment practices; (2) to chart the influence of foreign direct investment (FDI) and systems of industrial relations; (3) to outline the key elements of the research design and chart the process of collecting data; and (4) to provide a summary of the patterns of integration and differentiation found among MNCs.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial and Labor Relations ReviewSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207