MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737704415 · doi:10.1111/joms.12290

Global Cities, Connectivity, and the Location Choice of MNC Regional Headquarters

2017· article· en· W2737704415 on OpenAlexaff
René Belderbos, Helen S. Du, Anthony Goerzen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsEconomic geographyGeographical distanceMultinational corporationGlobal cityBridging (networking)BusinessRegional scienceFunction (biology)GeographySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Regional headquarters (RHQs) perform a crucial bridging function between corporate headquarters, regional affiliates, and other regional actors. Their bridging role and associated connectivity needs lead MNCs to locate their RHQs in highly connected ‘global cities’. We examine how the interplay between global city connectivity, geographic distance, and RHQ roles determine the likelihood that particular cities are chosen as a location for MNCs’ RHQ investments. Our inferences are based on an analysis of location choices for 1031 RHQs among 48 global cities. We find that while the geographic distance of a global city to the MNC's regional affiliates diminishes the likelihood that a given city is chosen, these distance effects disappear when the global city is highly connected. Well connected global cities, furthermore, attract investment in RHQs by MNCs from more distant countries‐of‐origin. On average, city connectivity is a more important characteristic for RHQs that have an entrepreneurial role.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations111
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management StudiesSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207