MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168621700 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14060264

Foreign Direct Investment in GCC Countries: The Essential Influence of Governance and the Adoption of IFRS

2021· article· en· W3168621700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Costas Siriopoulos, Αθανάσιος Τσαγκανός, Argyro Svingou, Evangelos Daskalopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceForeign direct investmentBusinessAccountingPosition (finance)Language changePanel dataQuality (philosophy)Fixed effects modelInternational economicsFinancial systemEconomicsFinanceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analysis of the factors affecting foreign direct investments, focusing on governance quality and adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards on countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which are a special case of study due to their idiosyncratic characteristics, rich natural resources and geographical position. Panel data analysis was conducted, implementing three different models (Fixed Effect, Random Effect, and Arellano Bond Dynamic Model). The results show that the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards is a strong determinant that promotes foreign direct investments. As regards the governance quality, the block of Gulf Cooperation Council countries has fulfilled the minimum level of governance pre-conditions relative to foreign direct investments. In addition, governance indicators associated with law, rules, and corruption are more influential determinants for foreign direct investments.

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)0.006
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207