A commentary on home‐region internationalization in financial groups from emerging economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine where large financial firms are expanding their operations, including financial firms from emerging economies. This paper has two objectives. The first is the documentation of the relative importance of the largest financial groups in emerging countries. The second objective is to describe the regional nature of financial firms. Design/methodology/approach The analysis of the internationalization process of these groups is based on a list of top 50 financial groups ranked by total assets in 2010. Findings The paper shows that the majority of the largest financial institutions from emerging countries are expanding their business in the home region where they are headquartered. This result provides support to the debate on the home‐region preference. Research limitations/implications The paper provides an example on preferences for the home‐region orientation but does not provide an analysis of the determinants of FDI in the financial sector. Originality/value The paper examines where large financial firms are expanding their operations, including financial firms from emerging economies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".