MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capability-Based Theories of Multinational Enterprise Growth

2020· book-chapter· en· W3110672880 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Teece, Olga Petricević

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationPerspective (graphical)Face (sociological concept)International businessKnowledge managementBusinessManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineeringSociologyManagementEconomicsSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this chapter we argue that traditional approaches to modeling the growth of the multinational enterprise (MNE) that focus on costs and efficiencies are too narrow to adequately and comprehensively address the foundations of MNE growth trajectories. Today’s global realities and the changing view of the MNE require a more focused and explicit capability-based perspective. In particular, we posit that contemporary theories of the MNE require frameworks and explanations that should simultaneously account for the uncertainties that firms face in their external environment and the complexities of often competing internal, organizational alternatives. To develop our reasoning in support of capability-based thinking, we discuss the changing nature on the international business (IB) landscape, the evolving views on the nature of the MNE, and present the core building blocks of capability-based thinking in managing MNE growth. We conclude the chapter by offering some thoughts on how capability-based thinking could be applied in future scholarly efforts.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207