MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selling China Looking Back and Looking Forward

2005· article· en· W2156745207 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement and Organization Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Zones and Regional Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentChinaArgument (complex analysis)Chinese economyGovernment (linguistics)Market economyState (computer science)EconomicsBusinessInternational economicsEconomyPolitical scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the objectives of Yasheng Huang's book Selling China: Foreign Direct Investment in the Reform Era is ‘to gain a better understanding of the operations of the Chinese economy in the 1990s as well as its FDI patterns’ (p. 69). We have no disagreement with Huang's general argument that for much of the 1990s domestic Chinese firms were less competitive than they would have been if the Chinese government had not favoured state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Similarly, while acknowledging the positive impact of FDI on China's development, Huang has real concern with FDI's disproportionately large role in the economy. He further feels that ‘some of China's FDI patterns may reflect institutional inefficiencies and weaknesses’ (p. 67). Again, we have no real disagreement that this was the case in the 1990s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · 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