MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279582989 · doi:10.1177/0020715215608230

The world cities of Hong Kong and Singapore: Network hubs of global finance

2015· article· en· W2279582989 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Urban Networks and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessColonialismFinancial servicesSoutheast asiaFinanceCore (optical fiber)Economic growthEconomyPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world cities of Hong Kong and Singapore, former creations of British colonialism, gained prominence as global financial centers primarily from decisions of firms headquartered in the core of Europe and North America to base their senior management in Hong Kong for Asia-Pacific and Singapore for Southeast Asia. This study uses qualitative interviews with financiers in both cities to examine how they use their networks to produce financial services from core-contending centers in a regional economy containing mostly core-contending, semiperipheral, and peripheral countries. The results reveal that Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s financiers and their firms gain competitive advantages in producing financial services from their network exploitation of their access to sophisticated information, knowledge, and expertise about Asia.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.321 · 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