Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) and the effect of BRICS on FDI flows to OECD countries. Specifically, we propose an FDI location-decision hypotheses based on Global Value Chains (GVCs) theory and test whether FDI flows to BRICS and OECD are competitive or complementary. The data used in this study is longitudinal (1998–2012) and covers 34 OECD countries. The Benchmark regression shows that the macroeconomic situation, infrastructure and FDI agglomeration all play important roles in FDI decision making. If the BRICS countries are considered as a group, our results suggest that the growing FDI in BRICS group is not at the expense of limiting FDI flows to OECD. Furthermore, FDI flows to Brazil, Russia and South Africa are complementary to OECD's; thus these countries together with OECD are in a global production network. However, FDI flows to China are as a substitute to OECD's, which means multinational corporations consider them as rival sites. FDI flows to India do not have a significant impact on OECD's, which might be the comprehensive outcome of competition effect and Global Value Chains (GVCs) effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".