Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster
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 research analyzes how foreign organizational practices diffuse among indigenous enterprises in a developing economy. It highlights the collective knowledge-building process as central for understanding diffusion. Based on a longitudinal case study of a cluster of dairy producers in Nicaragua, a representative low-income country, it looks at cross-border diffusion in conditions that differ significantly from advanced economies. The current literature that highlights institutional pressures driving global spread of practices has limits for capturing a significant dynamic caused by increased integration of markets and production. By focusing on production organization and practices in a late developing context, this paper explains the intertwined process of spreading new standards and changing existing local practices by elaborating the relationship among building collective capabilities, learning, and standards diffusion. This study enriches current views on institutional effects and adds to the practice-based literature, as well as to the work on developing economy firms in organizational research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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