MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014608315 · doi:10.1177/0891242402016001003

Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant High-Growth Entrepreneurs

2002· article· en· W2014608315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AnnaLee Saxenian

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Development Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSilicon valleyWorkforceInvestment (military)MainstreamEconomic growthQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessForeign direct investmentChinaEntrepreneurshipDevelopment economicsEconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the economic contributions of skilled Asian immigrants in Silicon Valley—both directly, as entrepreneurs, and indirectly, as facilitators of trade with and investment in their countries of origin. Skilled immigrants account for one third of the region’s engineering workforce and are increasingly visible as entrepreneurs and investors. Two thirds of the region’s foreign-born engineers were from Asia. Chinese and Indian immigrants in turn accounted for 74% of the total Asian-born engineering workforce. In 1998, Chinese and Indian engineers were senior executives at one quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses. These immigrant-run companies collectively accounted for more than $26.8 billion in sales and 58,282 jobs. The region’s most successful immigrant entrepreneurs rely heavily on ethnic resources while integrating into the mainstream technology economy. The challenge for policy makers will be to recognize these mutually beneficial connections between immigration, investment, trade, and economic development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations473
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic Development QuarterlySame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207