How might we study international business to account for marginalized subjects?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this article is to encourage critical scholars of international business (IB) to engage with scholarship that turns to practice and situates knowledges. The paper contends that such undertakings have the potential to constructively politicize research in the field of international business. Design/methodology/approach The paper discusses the need for future research in the field to be studied more critically so as to be able to focus attention on those subjects detrimentally impacted by the operation of IB. It further identifies possibilities for doing so. Findings The paper argues that turning to practice and situating knowledges represents a move towards the emancipation of subjects marginalized – and, all too often, silenced – in the ordinary functioning of IB. Originality/value Moving against the grain of positivist orientated approaches to research in the field, whilst simultaneously building on the critical traditions to the study of IB, we consider how future scholarship might account for marginalized subjects.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".