MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177000305 · doi:10.1002/gsj.1103

Speed of Internationalization: Mutual Effects of Individual‐ and Company‐ Level Antecedents

2015· article· en· W2177000305 on OpenAlexaff
Lee Li, Gongming Qian, Zhengming Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Strategy Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationModerationMediationModerated mediationBusinessPsychologyProcess (computing)PhenomenonMarketingSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years many small, young firms have started internationalizing early and have become ‘born globals’ (BGs). This study traces the phenomenon to five individual‐level and company‐level antecedents, including propensity to act, risk tolerance, company‐level organization of knowledge, ability to forge company‐level consensus, and company‐level responsiveness to new environments. Individual‐level antecedents are entrepreneurs' psychological qualities and company‐level antecedents are organizational behaviors. While these antecedents may or may not individually contribute to the rapid internationalization of small BGs, their interaction significantly speeds up the process. Evidence collected in this study demonstrates that the interaction among these antecedents is a complex mechanism. The interaction can be moderation, mediation, and even mediated moderation. The complex interaction of these antecedents explains the fast internationalization of BGs. The evidence sheds light on the relationships between entrepreneurs' psychological qualities and organizational behaviors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations68
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Strategy JournalSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207