MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994736034 · doi:10.1002/tie.21450

Initial internationalization of Chinese privately owned enterprises—the take‐off process

2012· article· en· W1994736034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans Jansson, Sten Söderman

Bibliographic record

VenueThunderbird International Business Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationChinaBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Emerging marketsEmpirical researchChinese marketMarketingProcess (computing)Industrial organizationInternational tradeFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the first quarter of 2010, China showed the highest quarterly growth (12%) of any country ever. Although privately owned enterprises (POEs) are an important factor behind this immense growth, knowledge about how they have become key exporters is scarce and largely overlooked, especially regarding how they started to go abroad. Two major take‐off processes from the domestic market to the foreign market are studied. The critical importance of the development of the local emerging market behind the possibilities of taking off is stressed, as well as how firms change between indirect and direct export modes. The research is based on an abductive case study research approach, where primary data is collected through interviews in the Yangtze River region. The case study involves six privately owned family firms run by strong and dominating entrepreneurs. Major empirical and theoretical conclusions, including nine propositions, summarize the article and indicate areas for further research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThunderbird International Business ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207