Challenges in Western‐Chinese business relationships: the Chinese perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify fundamental business practice differences that resulted from cultural differences between China and the West and to examine if traditional Chinese values and modern values coexist in the business context. Design/methodology/approach In total, ten one‐on‐one and two focus group interviews with Chinese business people involved in transactions with the USA were conducted in China. Findings The findings largely confirmed the significant influence of core Chinese traditional values on business practices in China. Contemporary business practices in China were found to be adapting to Western cultures in the presence of dynamic economic and social transitions. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study are based on a series of interviews conducted in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen with selected Chinese businesses. While this initial data from the Chinese perspective provides valuable insights, inclusion of a diverse population would provide richer understanding. Originality/value Based on findings, this study concludes that approaching China only with its traditional values limits understanding of the country's reality. Detailed practical implications based on findings are suggested.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it