Appointing a general manager in Sino‐US joint ventures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine performance implications of general manager appointment in Sino‐US joint ventures, specifically whether there is a difference in outcomes when the appointment is made by the Chinese or American partner. Design/methodology/approach Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from 94 managers representing US and Chinese partners in 67 international joint ventures (IJVs) based in China. Findings The results show that, when the general manager is Chinese rather than American, there is heightened conflict on daily personnel management issues, but not on strategic and contract issues, and the overall levels of partner satisfaction and relationship commitment decrease as well. Research limitations/implications The research was based on small sample size and cross‐sectional design. Originality/value This article focuses on the general manager appointment as a control mechanism and explores its link to IJV performance. It identifies daily/personnel issues as a source of conflicts that are associated with the right to appoint the IJV general manager.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it