MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097152148 · doi:10.1002/smj.904

Multinationals' response to major disasters: how does subsidiary investment vary in response to the type of disaster and the quality of country governance?

2010· article· en· W2097152148 on OpenAlexaff
Chang Hoon Oh, Jennifer Oetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsSubsidiaryMultinational corporationDisinvestmentCorporate governanceTerrorismBusinessNatural disasterForeign direct investmentQuality (philosophy)Panel dataInvestment (military)EconomicsFinancePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the response of multinational corporations (MNCs) to major disasters at the subsidiary level. We examine the type and severity of the disaster and whether and how country governance moderates the relationship between exogenous disaster risk and subsidiary investment. We test our hypotheses with a panel dataset of 71 large European MNCs and their subsidiaries (2001–2006) with 31,285 total observations. Findings suggest that the number of a firm's foreign subsidiaries is likely to decrease in response to terrorist attacks or technological disasters but not natural disasters, regardless of the severity of the event. For terrorist activities, MNC subsidiary‐level disinvestment is less likely when the quality of host country governance is higher. Copyright © 2011 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)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations312
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic Management JournalSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207