Should Chinese new technology SMEs remain independent in overseas markets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Chinese new small‐ and medium‐sized technology enterprises face an important strategic decision when they operate in overseas markets. That is, should they remain independent? Independent small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) rely on their own internal resources while dependent SMEs resort to external resources through partnerships. The paper aims to evaluate various market contexts in which one strategy is preferred to the other. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses developed from the literature review are tested with the quantitative data which were collected through questionnaires. Findings This paper assesses Chinese new technology SMEs' market environments and their internal resources. Findings from this paper suggest that different market contexts and different internal resources lead to different strategies. Originality/value This paper makes contributions to existing studies on two fronts. First, it investigates Chinese new technology SMEs' performance in the overseas market. Chinese new technology SMEs have been a new phenomenon in the world market and few studies have been reported on these firms' strategies and performance. Second, this paper assesses SMEs' strategic option of independence and dependence against the background of high‐tech industries which require heavy R&D investments and have been highly risky and uncertain.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".