MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226366685 · doi:10.14414/jebav.v24i2.2721

What Determines Foreign Direct Investment in Indonesia?

2021· article· en· W4226366685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Euis Eti Sumiyati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economics Business and Accountancy Ventura · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentCointegrationInflation (cosmology)Distributed lagGross fixed capital formationQuarter (Canadian coin)IncentiveEconomicsDistribution (mathematics)Exchange rateInvestment (military)Government (linguistics)BusinessCapital goodMonetary economicsGoods and servicesInternational economicsMacroeconomicsEconomyMarket economyEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Indonesia's manufacturing sector. This study uses time-series data with 40 data observations starting from the 1st quarter of 2010 to the 4th quarter of 2020. The data analysis method employed in this research was Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) cointegration approach. The research results were that in the long run, the exchange rate and GDP growth had a positive effect, inflation had a negative effect, and gross fixed capital formation did not affect the FDI inflows in the manufacturing sector. This research implies that the government must be able to create or develop policies related to foreign direct investment to provide benefits for economic development in Indonesia. The government's efforts to control inflation have to be strengthened continuously by maintaining the availability of supply and distribution of goods. Supply continuity and smooth distribution between regions have to be further improved through the utilization of information technology and the strengthening of inter-regional cooperation. Likewise, efforts to increase economic growth have to continue to be improved by providing incentives or facilities to companies at various levels, both those that are export-oriented and those that focus on domestic sales.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economics Business and Accountancy VenturaSame topicEconomic Growth and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207