Differences in Partners’ Perception and the Performance of German-Chinese Joint Ventures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study discusses the role of differences in individuals’ perception for research in international management in general, and then explores the extent to which partner firm representatives of German-Chinese Joint Ventures (GCJVs) differ in their perception of various characteristics of their co-operation. In a second step the article suggests how differences in partners’ perceptions of key variables in the management of International Joint Ventures (IJVs) are associated with the perceived performance of such ventures. Using empirical data gathered from 38 General Managers and senior managers representing both sides of 19 GCJVs in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), asymmetries in partners’ perceptions and their association with the perceived performance of the IJV are explored empirically. The results show interesting differences in perception between the German and Chinese partners, and some significant relationships between the differences in perceptions and IJV performance. The key results of the paper are that (1) there are considerable differences in the perceptions of managers representing the different sides of a JV, and (2) that these differences are related to differences in the perception of IJV performance. The paper contributes to research and practice by identifying and providing first empirical data on the magnitude of perceptual differences in IJVs and their potential relevance for the performance of IJVs.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it