MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2493243827 · doi:10.1111/caje.12183

Firm integration strategies and imperfect labour markets

2015· article· en· W2493243827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hartmut Egger, Peter Egger, Tobias Seidel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFritz Thyssen StiftungAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsOutsourcingImperfectEconomicsVertical integrationIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsWelfareGeneral equilibrium theoryMarket integrationInvestment (military)Production (economics)Foreign direct investmentLabour economicsInternational economicsMarket economyBusinessMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper introduces labour market imperfections into a three‐country model to study the determinants of firm integration strategies in an open economy. Accounting simultaneously for the decision upon in‐house production versus international outsourcing and the decision upon exporting versus horizontal foreign investment, the analysis points to a crucial role of labour market frictions for the interaction of vertical and horizontal aspects of firm integration strategies in a general equilibrium environment. Beyond that, the analysis sheds light on the consequences of integrating developing countries into the global market, thereby pointing to hitherto unexplored effects arising from adjustments of firm integration strategies. In a welfare analysis, we show that the existence of gains from trade crucially depends on whether firm integration strategies are endogenous or not.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.032 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique→Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→