MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2754068883

TEACHING: French Danone and Chinese Wahaha: Yet Another Example of an Unsuccessful International Joint Venture

2010· article· en· W2754068883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pingying Zhang, Cheryl Van Deusen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationJoint ventureCorporationQuality (philosophy)BusinessCompetitive advantageFaithLeap of faithMarketingManagementBusiness administrationEconomicsFinancePhilosophyTheologyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During a five-day visit to Taiwan on November 26, 2009, Zong Qinghou, Managing Director of the Chinese firm Wahaha, was impressed by the quality of Guangquan Corporation’s dairy products.  An opportunity for another international joint venture (IJV) arose in Zong’s mind.  It was too attractive to ignore in that it might give Wahaha a competitive edge in establishing a quality image after the scandal involving contaminated milk formulas by the Sanlu Group in 2008 had greatly shaken consumers’ faith in Chinese brands.  However, the bitter dispute with the French multinational enterprise Danone, Wahaha’s first IJV partner, caused Zong to reconsider whether to take advantage of this opportunity.  Danone finally pulled out of the IJV on September 30, 2009 after years of fighting, ending the almost 12 year relationship with Wahaha.  Because this relationship had not worked out, Zong was thinking about what went wrong during the previously unsuccessful IJV.  He was deep in thought (Lucy, 2009).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0300.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development Research→French-language works237,207→