MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Crossing Cultures, Learning to Export: Making Houses in British Columbia for Consumption in Japan*

2002· article· en· W2081599853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim Reiffenstein, Roger Hayter, David W. Edgington

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Dimension (graph theory)Production (economics)PoliticsProcess (computing)MarketingHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryMarket intelligenceSociologyBusinessEconomicsEconomyIndustrial organizationPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In this article, trade is conceptualized as a cultural as well as an economic and political process. In this view, exporting connects market intelligence with production intelligence on either side of national, typically cultural, borders. These connections frequently imply alternative, mutually influencing, forms of communication and learning that have various implications for local development. A model of relational market intelligence is outlined as a way of understanding this dimension of exporting. The model integrates production and market intelligence while emphasizing alternative pathways of learning and communication. It is applied to the newly emergent trade that features the export of houses from British Columbia to Japan. Within an extended case‐study research design framework, information is based on interviews with manufacturing firms and related organizations in British Columbia. Implications for local development in British Columbia are noted.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic GeographySame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207