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 paper reports on a longitudinal investigation into two groups of UK firms’ use of trade missions in psychologically distant countries. Firms in the first group were “new” to the markets, that is, having never visited the markets under investigation prior to attending the trade mission (NEW). In comparison, the other group contained “experienced” firms, having at least limited experience in these same markets (EXP). The findings suggested that over the two years of the study, differences existed between the two groups’ strategies. Newcomers to the markets used their first visit to: establish market presence through agents; gain access to business networks; and obtain an understanding of the functioning of the market. For exporters who had already visited the market, these visits were a means to: expand the span of their activities in the market to new networks; and strengthen their presence in previously established networks. The longitudinal methodology employed offers a contribution to knowledge at the public policy/ international entrepreneurship interface by expanding on earlier studies that have been restricted to single timeframes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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