MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296798171 · doi:10.4337/9781781009147.00015

Initiative in multinational subsidiaries

2012· book-chapter· en· W2296798171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julian Birkinshaw, Shameen Prashantham

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationSubsidiaryBusinessEntrepreneurshipControl (management)Competitive advantagePerspective (graphical)Power (physics)Public relationsPolitical scienceIndustrial organizationMarketingManagementEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multinational corporations (MNCs) are complex, multifaceted entities. They can be studied through any number of conceptual lenses, and to some degree we, as researchers, are likely to see in them whatever we are looking for. MNCs have formal structures and control systems; they can be modeled as social networks; they are an arena for political and power games; they exhibit cultural disconnects. MNCs are also organic entities that evolve with the changing business environment, often with highly porous boundaries. The view of the MNC we are interested in here is an entrepreneurial one; that is, we are concerned with how individuals (within the MNC) actively pursue new opportunities without regard to the resources they control (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Moreover, we are particularly interested in entrepreneurship that comes from managers of foreign subsidiaries that are relatively limited in their resources and/or their degrees of freedom. By focusing on these somewhat unusual individuals, and the initiatives they pursue, we are able to open up important broader issues regarding the way that MNCs evolve over time, and their sources of competitive advantage. This entrepreneurial perspective is one the first author mapped out almost 20 years ago in his doctoral thesis (Birkinshaw, 1995). This research was conducted in Canada in the aftermath of the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, and it documented issues and challenges that managers of foreign-owned subsidiary companies in Canada were preoccupied with.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207