Foreign Direct Investment, Trade and Economic Growth: A New Paradigm of the BRICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study begins by surveying broadly supports the assertion that regional integration in the case of the BRICS is not adequately paid attention except with very few original or significant contributions. This research examines the existing pattern in the areas of trade and investment with a view to locate in the development context. It was also essential to make a theoretical investigation on literature of trade along with the empirical one. The survey broadly supports the frequent, through usually undocumented, assertion that BRICS was an area had tended to neglect and to which they had made few if any original or significant contributions. Alongside, this study panel data on BRICSs, where the results confirm that foreign direct investment (FDI), trade and economic growth indicate the presence of long-run sustainable equilibrium relationship between them. It is thus important that policymakers to remove obstacles to FDI inflows and improve the respective absorptive capacity in order to reap maximize positive growth effects. This study also discussed that how China performed well through attracting FDI inflows and maintained trade balance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".