The Institutional Effects on Strategic Alliance Partner Selection in Transition Economies: China vs. Russia
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.918
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.528
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
China and Russia represent major economies in transition from command economies, yet their paths to the market have differed greatly. Their divergent approaches have helped create distinct institutional environments. This study focuses on a particularly important strategic decision firms face—alliance partner selection. The study's results suggest that China's more stable and supportive institutional environment has helped Chinese firms take a longer-term view of alliance partner selection, focusing more on the potential partner's intangible assets along with technological and managerial capabilities. In contrast, the less stable Russian institutional environment has influenced Russian managers to focus more on the short term, selecting partners that provide access to financial capital and complementary capabilities so as to enhance their firms—ability to weather that nation's turbulent environment. This study contributes to knowledge about the influence of the institutional environment on alliance partner selection decisions for firms domiciled in transition (and emerging) economies.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Topic
- International Business and FDI
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- Queen's University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- AllianceBusinessChinaSelection (genetic algorithm)Emerging marketsStrategic allianceEconomic systemIndustrial organizationFace (sociological concept)Transition economyMarket economyTransition (genetics)MarketingEconomicsFinancePolitical science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes