MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063782009 · doi:10.5539/ass.v4n5p45

An Assessment of Analysis on the Penetration of Malaysian Contractors into India

2009· article· en· W2063782009 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nur Aishah Mohd Hamdan, Hamimah Adnan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployee Welfare and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetration (warfare)BusinessOperations managementEngineeringOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will give insight to India as a developing country and an emerging super-power in the world’s economy. It will explain the factors that contribute to the development of India and the changes India has gone through to achieve the success. Following a thorough literature review, questionnaire surveys were sent out to G7 contractors registered under CIDB Malaysia to understand the situation of contractors in their venture into the Indian construction market. It was found that the successful contractors viewed profit margin as the most important factor when tendering compared to building reputation in the Indian market. The contractors need to make groundwork or research, build/increase tolerance and skills in negotiation. An offer of attractive financial package and comprehensive services and good Indian partnership with local representatives to build better relationship and accumulate better market information are several main factors to succeed in the Indian construction market. The findings of this research provide useful information for any contractors to their intention in penetrate the Indian construction market.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEmployee Welfare and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207