The dynamics of regional and global multinationals, 1999-2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyze regional versus global activities of large firms. We assemble longitudinal data over the 1999-2008 period. Design/methodology/approach – Sales and assets data for the Fortune 500 firms from 1999-2008 were compiled from annual reports of the firms, by triad region. The definition of the triad regions is based on international accounting standards. The classifications of firms are based upon the new metric of regional-to-total sales rather than the traditional metric of foreign-to-total sales. Findings – In an extension of the original study of Rugman and Verbeke (2004), no trend toward globalization is found, as nearly 80 per cent of the world’s largest firms are classified as home-region oriented, and only 4 per cent are classified as global. Only a few firms change classifications over the ten-year period. Overall, the world’s largest firms average 70 per cent of their sales and 72 per cent of their assets in their home region of the triad. Originality/value – This paper is the first one to use longitudinal data in the analysis of regional versus global firms, with ten years of data on the regional sales and assets of the world’s 500 largest firms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".