MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484110368 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511778148.008

Human Rights and the Ethics of Investment in China

2010· book-chapter· en· W2484110368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel E. Lee, Elizabeth J. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaInvestment (military)Human rightsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beijing today looks much like Chicago, Toronto, Brussels, or any other modern city – high-rise office buildings clad in glass, streets packed with automobiles and trucks, and billboards, many of them in English, advertising name-brand products, many of them U.S. name brands, though that, of course, does not necessarily mean they were manufactured in the United States. The same can be said of Shanghai, Nanjing, and a number of other Chinese cities. The U.S presence in China, which is apparent even to the most casual observer, is growing rapidly. From 1993 to 2002, direct investment in China by U.S. companies increased by a factor of ten, making the United States the second largest foreign investor in China. (Hong Kong, though nominally a part of China but with a separate economic and political structure, is the largest foreign investor.) A substantial portion of the U.S. investment (approximately 60 percent) is in the manufacturing sector, which turns out vast quantities of merchandise, some of it sold in the rapidly expanding Chinese market, some of it exported for sale in the United States and elsewhere.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207