Bibliographic record
Abstract
China is regarded as the world’s leading practitioner of state capitalism in which important capitalist enterprises have a close relationship with the state. One prominent feature of China’s state capitalism is the fundamental role of about 100 large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) controlled by organs of the central government in critical industries such as oil, telecom, and transportation. These SOEs are often dubbed “China’s national champions.” They are not only important players in China’s domestic economy but also major contributors to China’s fast growing global investment. Their global expansion however often encounters political and regulatory challenges abroad, partly because their corporate governance practices are opaque and often deviant from international standards. Prevailing theories suggest that political and regulatory pressure arising from institutional distance between China and host countries (particularly advanced economies such as the United States) may act as an effective force to push for SOE governance change. Empirical findings in this Article however indicate that the development of global equity connections that potentially expose SOEs to foreign institutional pressure seems virtually irrelevant to the reform patterns of these most important non-financial SOEs in China. The absence of correlation may be related to investment structure and geography, investment motives, and importantly, China’s domestic political institutions. This Article offers insights into the perennial scholarly debate about the future of national corporate governance systems in the era of globalization and also provides practical recommendations for Chinese and international policymakers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".