MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022942413 · doi:10.1111/caje.12001/pdf

Exposure to FDI and New Plant Survival: Evidence in Canada

2010· preprint· en· W3022942413 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yanling Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisUpstream (networking)IndigenousForeign direct investmentCompetition (biology)BusinessDownstream (manufacturing)International tradeInternational economicsEconomicsEngineeringMarketingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how exposure to FDI affects Canadian indigenous plants‘ survival, through their economic linkages with FDI affiliates as competitors, input suppliers and customers. One unique feature of the paper is that it studies a country with extensive exposure to FDI, and relies on a dataset including hundreds of thousands of manufacturing plants born to Canadian domestic firms, covering a long time period from 1973 to 1997. The study finds that indigenous plants tend to have shorter lives (more deaths) due to competition with FDI affiliates operating in the same industry, but benefit from FDI affiliates operating in upstream and downstream industries as input suppliers and customers. The positive benefits of FDI outweigh the negative competition effects, resulting in net positive impact on the survival of indigenous Canadian-owned plants. For those plants in cohorts which have survived long enough to become exporters, access to foreign markets generates additional significant benefits for their survival.

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)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207