MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OFFSHORING AND PRODUCTIVITY: A MICRO‐DATA ANALYSIS

2010· article· en· W2032613015 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jianmin Tang, Henrique Do Livramento

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffshoringProductivityBusinessForeign direct investmentDimension (graph theory)Industrial organizationInternational tradeProduction (economics)International businessInvestment (military)Survey data collectionEconomicsOutsourcingMarketingMicroeconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshoring has become increasingly important for businesses, especially manufacturing firms, to compete in domestic and international markets. This paper empirically studies the association between offshoring, productivity, and plant characteristics by focusing on the geographical dimension of plants' business activities. Using data from Statistics Canada's Survey of Innovation 2005 and Annual Surveys of Manufacturers, we show that material offshoring is strongly associated with firms' outward‐oriented business activities (including foreign operation, investing in foreign M&E, and exporting), even after controlling for geographic advantages and industry‐ and plant‐specific effects. For R&D offshoring, we find that it is mainly associated with investment in foreign M&E. In addition, this paper shows that material offshoring is positively associated with productivity and that the association is significantly larger for material offshoring to Asia Pacific countries than for material offshoring to the U.S. and other locations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207