MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1840825878 · doi:10.1002/cjas.1341

Is social entrepreneurship a greenfield for foreign direct investment? A conceptual and empirical analysis

2015· article· en· W1840825878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordi Paniagua, Alicia Mas‐Tur, Juan Sapena

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentLegitimacyEntrepreneurshipWelfare economicsPolitical scienceInternational businessEconomyEconomicsBusiness administrationBusinessManagementMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Building on legitimacy and social strategy theories, this research proposes a conceptual and empirical framework that links social entrepreneurial activity (SEA) with foreign direct investment (FDI). Investing in foreign countries with a high degree of SEA contributes to increasing foreign investors’ legitimacy. Additionally, firms may consider SEA as a constituent of their social strategy. A key contribution of this study is the comprehensive conceptual framework used to analyze the link between social entrepreneurship and international business. The second key contribution is the econometric analysis of SEA's effect on greenfield FDI, foreign employment, and foreign projects. The estimation results of the gravity equation suggest that social entrepreneurship fosters FDI. This research offers theoretical insight on legitimacy theory's relevance in explaining the link between FDI and SEA. Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207