MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021314137 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v2n4p125

Study on the Influence of Foreign Direct Investment on Chinese Foreign Trade

2009· article· en· W2021314137 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economic and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentChinaInternational tradeInternational economicsBusinessWorld tradeEconomicsPolitical scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the background that global foreign direct investment (FDI)crashed largely, Chinese foreign investments fell year on year in the first half year of 2009, but its proportion in the global FDI gross didn’t drop, and China is still the first investment place for feign investments in the world. China is the country which attracted most FDI accumulatively in all developing countries and had the most amount of foreign sub-company in the world. But many problems still exist in the process that China uses FDI to improve the development of international trade. In the article, the FDI is first introduced, and the influences of FDI on Chinese foreign trade are pointed out, and the countermeasures that Chinese uses FDI to improve the development of international trade are put forward finally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.230 · 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