MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218374261 · doi:10.7202/1077351ar

Les IDE dans les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale : une approche gravitationnelle

2021· preprint· fr· W2218374261 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled Guesmi, FrédéricTeulon

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2021
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentGravity model of tradeLanguage changeGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsGeographyInternational economicsBusinessMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’intéresse aux déterminants des investissements directs étrangers (IDE) européens dans les pays d’Europe Centrale et Orientale (PECO). Nous utilisons un modèle théorique permettant d’étudier les décisions des Firmes Multinationales. Deux estimations ont été effectuées : une coupe transversale sur la période (1996-2013) complétée par une méthode SURE (Seemingly Unrelated Regressions Method). Les variables macroéconomiques retenues (distance, intensité technologique, taille du marché, risque pays…) ont un impact déterminant sur les flux d’IDE, mais avec des résultats différenciés selon la méthode utilisée. Depuis le début des années 1990, l’attractivité des pays de l’Est est liée en grande partie aux perspectives ouvertes par leur adhésion à l’Union européenne, le choix de la méthode de privatisation des entreprises publiques a aussi joué un rôle. Pour les coûts salariaux les résultats obtenus sont plus ambigus : selon la coupe transversale l’impact est négatif et significatif, en revanche dans la méthode SURE, les résultats sont moins significatifs.

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)0.003
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207