Bibliographic record
Abstract
參考文獻 一、中文文獻 Ball, D., A. (2002). 國際企業：全球競爭的挑戰（八版）（任文姍譯）。台北：美商麥格羅希爾。（英文版2002） Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1999). 平衡計分卡：資訊時代的策略管理工具（初版）（朱凱道譯）。台北：臉譜文化。（英文版1992） 大前研一 (1989)。策略家的智慧（黃宏義譯）。台北：長河。（日文版1984） 方世杰 (1999)。產業研發聯盟之廠商特質、技術轉移特性、互動機制與績效之研究。管理學報，16卷，4期，633－659。 方世杰 (1996)。企業技術交易模式影響因素之探討。台大商學研究所未出版博士論文。 司徒達賢、于卓民、曾紀幸 (1997)。環境特性與公司特性對多國企業網路關係之影響－在台外商之實證研究。管理學報， 14卷，2期，155－171。 杜榮瑞、蔣明晃、林佩琪 (2000)。研究發展策略與績效衡量：平衡計分卡之實證研究。管理學報，17卷，4期，563－589。 李書行 (1995)。務實創新的策略性績效評估。會計研究月刊，113卷，15－23。 莊正民、趙必孝、陳穎峰 (1999)。國際企業海外研發的動機、策略與管理。中山管理評論，7卷，1期，155－188。 陳穎峰、趙必孝、凌雅慧 (2000)。國際企業海外研究發展的策略性人力資源管理。亞太管理評論，5卷，1期，29－51。 陳蕙萱 (2003)。以平衡計分卡觀點分析企業人力派外績效之相關影響因素研究。義守大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文。 黃英忠、莊智薰、林豪傑 (2002)。環境不確定下大學院校競爭策略之選擇。第11屆中華民國管理教育研討會，2002年4月19日，113－123。桃園：元智大學。 蘇國楨 (1993)。多國籍企業在台子公司之研發管理。技術學刊，8卷，4期，519－528。 二、英文文獻 Anne-Wil, H. (2000). An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 101－119. Bailetti, A. J., & Callahan, J. R. (1992). The co-ordination structure of international collaborative technology arrangements. R&D Management Conference Proceedings “Managing R&D Internationally”. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173－1182. Bartlett, C., Doz, Y., & Hedlund, G. (1989). Managing innovations in the transnational corporations. In Research on Multinational Management. London: Assison-Wesley. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across border: the transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1987). Managing across borders: New organizational responses. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 43－53. Chiesa, V. (1996). Strategies for global R&D. Research Technology Management, 39 (5), 19－31. Coskin, S., Richard, S., & John, S. H. (1993). International Marketing. (pp. 210) New York: Macmillan. Davenport, S., & Miller, A. (2000). The formation and evolution of international research alliances in emergent technologies: Research issues. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11 (2), 199-213. Doz, Y. (1989). Managing technological innovation in large complex firms: The contribution of HRM. HRM in International Firms. Dunning, J. H. (1988). Multinationals, Technology and Competitiveness. (chap.7). London: Unwin Hymm. Fleming, P. (1991). Empowerment strengthens the rock. Management Review, Dec., 34－37. Florida, R. (1997). The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26, 85－103. Gandz, J. (1990). The employee empowerment era. Business Quarterly, Autumn, 74－79. Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28, 251－274. Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1989). Internal differential within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (4), 323－337. Gordon, R. W., & Mark, A. F. (2000). Globalization: An analytical framework. www.law.indiana.edu/glsj/vo13/no2/walker.html. Hedlund, G., & Dag, R. (1990). Action in heterarchies: New approaches to managing the MNC. In C. A. Bartlett, Doz, Y., & Hedlund, G. (Eds.), Managing the Global Firm. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt. Hippel, E. V. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291－302. Hood & Young. (1982). FIND Dunning J. H. Multinationals, Technology and Competitiveness (chap.7). London: Unwin Hymm. Jao, I. Y. (1997). The interaction-learning effects in cross-border manufacturing alliances. The First International Management Conference. , National Chi-Nan University, Puli. Jarillo, J. C., & Martinez, J. I. (1990). Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of MNCs in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 501－512. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, Jan.－Feb., 75－85. Kuemmerle, W. (1999). Foreign direct investment in industries－Results from a survey of multinational firms. Research Policy, 28, 179－193. Kuemmerle, W. (1997). Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Review, Mar.－Apr., 61－70. Martineze, J. I. & Jarillo, J. C. (1991). Coordinating demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business, 4th Quarter, 429－444. Medcof, J. (1997). A taxonomy of internationally dispersed technology units and its application to management issues. R&D Management, 27 (4), 301－318. Meyer, A. D. (1992). Management of an international network of industry R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 23, 109－121. Meyer, A. D. (1991). Tech talk: How managers are stimulating global R&D communication. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 49－58. Meyer, A. D., & Mizushima, A. (1989). Global R&D management. R&D Management, 19, 135－147. Michael, E. P. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, November－December, 61－78. Miller, R. (1994). Global R&D networks & large-scale innovations: The case of the automobile industry. Elsevier Science Publishers, 27－46. Moon, C. H. (1998). Technological capacity as a determinant of governance form in international strategic combinations. The Journal of Technology Management Research, 9 (1), 35－53. Nobel, R. & Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in international R&D operations. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 479－496. Picard, J. (1977). Factors of variance in multinational marketing control. In L. G. Matsson & P. F. Widershcim (Eds.), Recent Research on The Internatinalization of Business. Upsals: Stockholm School of Economics. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79－91. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. (1987). The Multinational Mission, 13－37. Reger, G. (1997). How R&D is coordinated in Japanese and European multinationals. R&D Management, 29, 71－88. Ronstadt, R. C. (1978). International R&D: The establishment and evolution of R&D abroad by seven U.S. MNCs. Journal Of International Business Studies, Spring－Summer, 7－74. Rugman, A. M. (1983). Multinational enterprises and world product mandates. Multinationals and Technology Transfer-The Canadian Experience, 73－90. Su, Kuo-Jen. （蘇國楨） (2003). An R&D management model for MNCs’ subsidiaries: An empirical study of European affiliates in Taiwan. International Journal of Management and Decision-Making, 3 (3-4), 353-369. Stainer, A., & Nixon, B. (1997). Productivity and performance measurement in R&D. International Journal of Technology Management, 13 (5-6), 486－496. Thomas, H., Michael E. P., & Eileen, R. (1982). How global companies win out? Harvard Business Review, September－October, 98－110. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 451－478. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1994). Domestic and international competitive focus, technology strategy and company performance: an empirical analysis. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6, 39－53. Zander, I. (1998). The evolution of technological capabilities in the multinational corporation-dispersion, duplication and potential advantages from multinationality. Research Policy, 27 (1), 17－35.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".