MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084163284 · doi:10.1002/smj.357

Geographic scope and multinational enterprise performance

2003· article· en· W2084163284 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Goerzen, Paul W. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationScope (computer science)Argument (complex analysis)Diversity (politics)Asset (computer security)Economic geographyInternalization theoryIndustrial organizationSample (material)BusinessStructural equation modelingEconomicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Through an internalization theory lens, an argument is developed to suggest that the traditional concept of geographic scope should be split into two related, but more precise, elements of international asset dispersion and country environment diversity . Subsequently, these new concepts are tested using a structural equation modeling approach on a sample of 580 large multinational enterprises (MNEs). We find that the relationship between economic performance and international asset dispersion is positive, but that country environment diversity is negatively associated with performance, with a positive interaction between them. This study adds to our theoretical understanding of MNEs, and also provides a bridge between the mixed findings of prior research on multinationality by disentangling the unique effects of the latent subcomponents of geographic scope on firm performance. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations462
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic Management JournalSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207