MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745878260 · doi:10.1080/19186444.2017.1362861

Cross-cultural issues in M&As: experiences and future agenda from Asia-Pacific deals

2017· article· en· W2745878260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rabi Narayan Kar, Minakshi Kar

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Corporation Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMergers and acquisitionsOpenness to experienceMerge (version control)Cross-culturalGlobalizationCultural diversityPolitical scienceOrganizational culturePublic relationsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of global competition, enterprises have adopted a strategic route on Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) for growth. This has been more profound since the liberalisation and openness programme adopted by many countries. Research literature on M&As has attributed failure of deals primarily to cross-cultural factors. Hence, researchers remained interested in understanding the nuances of cross cultural issues for the success of integration. Further, literature on cultural issues suggests that due to the complexity, uniqueness and largely tacit nature of organisational culture, it is difficult to imitate and adopt any specific organisational culture. This becomes even more difficult in the international settings where organisations forced to merge with different nationalities, background, and languages. This study examines the cross-cultural issues associated with Indian cross border deals in the Asia-Pacific region in order to find out the key research dimensions. It attempts to seek answers to these issues based on the Indian evidence which may aid successful cultural integration.

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)0.007
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Corporation ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207