MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139956747 · doi:10.1080/08997764.2021.1906689

Media corruption perceptions and US foreign direct investment

2020· article· en· W3139956747 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Refakar, Jean‐Pierre Gueyié

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Media Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentLanguage changePerceptionBusinessInvestment (military)International economicsEconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsLawMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Media play an important role in shaping people’s beliefs and ideas. More specifically, media have a great influence on what we think about foreign countries. The media influence the way a country’s citizens view the people and governments of other countries and shape our image of them. All types of articles about foreign countries are covered in the media. Investors looking to invest abroad certainly pay attention to what is reported in the media about corruption in other countries. Since corruption plays a huge role in investment decisions, this paper investigates the role of corruption coverage in Wall Street journal on US foreign direct investment outflows. We find that an abundance of corruption stories about a specific country in The Wall Street Journal can demotivate investors and reduce the amount of US foreign direct investment outflows to that country.

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)0.013
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Media EconomicsSame topicMedia Influence and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207