An Empirical Study of Development Processes in Foreign-Owned Subsidiaries in Canada and Scotland (1997)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a detailed clinical study of development processes in a sample of foreign-owned manufacturing subsidiaries in Canada and Scotland. Development is used here to refer to the growth and enhancement of subsidiary resources that add increasing levels of value to the multinational corporation (MNC) as a whole. In this context, the development process is viewed as an extension of the internationalisation process, in that it represents increasing levels of resource commitments in foreign markets (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). The point at which the traditional ‘internationalisation’ process ends, i.e. with the first incidence of FDI, is thus the point at which subsidiary development begins. Despite the widespread evidence for resource-rich and influential subsidiaries (e.g. Forsgren, Holm and Johanson, 1992), the process by which they develop has apparently escaped systematic research attention so far. A few studies have referred to the growth of subsidiary resources but not as their primary objective (e.g. Prahalad and Doz, 1983; Forsgren et al., 1992; Kim and Mauborgne, 1993), and studies of subsidiary types – in which development is implied but never discussed – are legion (e.g. White and Poynter, 1984; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1986).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".