MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831109011 · doi:10.1108/mrr-12-2013-0293

Influence of institutional profiles on time to recall

2015· article· en· W1831109011 on OpenAlexaff
Etayankara Muralidharan, Hari Bapuji, André O. Laplume

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Research Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallOriginalityProduct (mathematics)MarketingValue (mathematics)Affect (linguistics)BusinessQuality (philosophy)CommissionEconomicsPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This paper aims to understand why firms expedite or delay product recall decisions involving international sourcing. Design/methodology/approach – This paper combines US toy recall data from the Consumer Products Safety Commission database for the period from 1988to 2011 with World Economic Forum data on institutional environments to predict the effect the host country conditions have on recall timing decisions. Findings – Firms tend to expedite decisions to recall defective products sourced from countries where the informal institutional profile is perceived to be unfavorable for quality manufacture. Research limitations/implications – The reported research is empirical in nature and uses pooled cross-country, single-industry data. Practical implications – Managers should be careful not to allow their biases to affect their product recall timing decisions. Originality/value – Whereas previous research has examined recall timing decisions, this study is the first to consider the institutional environment where products are sourced from as an explanatory variable.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Research ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207