MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220900181 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v15n4p74

Foreign Investment, COVID-19 Stringency Measures and Risk of Openness

2022· article· en· W4220900181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maela Giofré

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceIndex (typography)Foreign direct investmentGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEstimationInvestment (military)Political riskPandemicEconomicsDemographic economicsMonetary economicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PoliticsMacroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the impact of the COVID-19 government stringency index on foreign investment, at the onset of the pandemic. Through a Robust Least Square regression estimation, we highlight that the relationship between foreign investment and the government containment measures displays a significant cross-country heterogeneity that depends on the level of the pandemic risk in the country. Foreign investors have indeed tilted their asset allocation towards those countries that implemented strong containment measures (as measured by the government stringency index) in the presence of a high risk (as measured by the risk of openness index). Conversely, they have shown a lower propensity to invest in assets issued by countries either adopting weak stringency measures despite a high risk of openness, or implementing drastic stringency measures in the presence of a relatively lower risk of openness. The above findings suggest the following interpretation: the government stringency measures and the pandemic risk have jointly affected foreign investors’ behavior, which appeared relatively more prone towards assets issued by those economies better calibrating the policy interventions according to the pandemic harshness.

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)0.010
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207