Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux théories d’internationalisation dominent aujourd’hui la recherche sur le développement des entreprises à l’international : le modèle Uppsala de Johanson et Vahlne (1977) qui fut réaménagé par ses auteurs en 2009, et le modèle International New Ventures de Oviatt et McDougall (1994). Ces théories sont souvent opposées, en particulier sur les dimensions de processus et de vitesse. Dans cet essai, nous proposons d’adopter une vision différente de ces théories en examinant trois concepts qu’elles partagent : l’avantage concurrentiel, l’ouverture internationale et la connaissance. Nous montrons en quoi les théories convergent ou divergent quant à l’utilisation de ces concepts en examinant les postulats sous-jacents à chaque théorie. Nous déduisons de l’analyse que ces théories possèdent des traits communs en dépit de leurs différences et dessinons quelques pistes de recherche qui aideraient à comprendre l’efficience de ces processus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.292 | 0.125 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".