<i>Guanxi</i> Practice and Quality: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Managers’ Business-to-Business and Business-to-Government Ties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study provides new insight into guanxi practice and quality differences between business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-government (B2G) ties in China. The results, based on data obtained through structured interviews with 108 Chinese managers across eight cities in China, reveal stark differences between the practices used in developing B2B ties and those used in developing B2G ties. More specifically, these two tie types differ in a variety of guanxi initiation, building, and utilization practices. This study also builds upon the process model of guanxi development by highlighting the dissimilar role of gift giving practices in B2B and B2G ties. Furthermore, this study measures guanxi quality as a separate concept from guanxi process and demonstrates that guanxi quality is a multidimensional concept that is composed of affective attachment and felt obligation, both of which vary across B2B and B2G ties. Implications of these results for theory development and managerial practice in China are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".