MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139396699 · doi:10.3386/w24461

Foreign Direct Investment and Knowledge Diffusion in Poor Locations

2018· report· en· W3139396699 on OpenAlexaff
Girum Abebe, Margaret McMillan, Michel Serafinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsForeign direct investmentCompetition (biology)Total factor productivityBusinessProductivityInternational tradeInternational economicsInvestment (military)ImitationAgricultural economicsEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use a plant level survey to identify interactions between domestic plants and foreign direct investment (FDI) in Ethiopia's manufacturing sector.One third of Ethiopian plants are linked to FDI through labor sharing, supply chains and competition.Technology upgrading most commonly occurs as a result of competition in output markets and observation and imitation of FDI in the same line of business.Other benefits include enhanced managerial practices and knowledge about exporting.Spillovers from FDI are identified by comparing changes in total factor productivity (TFP) among domestic plants in districts where a large greenfield foreign plant produces and districts where FDI in the same industry and around the same time was licensed but not yet operational.Over the four years starting with the year of the FDI opening, the TFP of domestic plants is 11 percent higher in treated districts, employment in domestic plants increases and more domestic plants open.

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)0.009
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207