MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293373661 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2022.6.001

Determinants of foreign direct investment in Southeast and South Asian countries

2022· article· en· W4293373661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yolanda Yolanda, Sumarni Sumarni, Muslim Kamil

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentOpenness to experienceExchange ratePanel dataEconomicsInternational economicsWageMarket sizeInflation (cosmology)BusinessMonetary economicsLabour economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to describe the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) determinants of 6 countries, each of which is 3 countries from Southeast Asia and South Asia. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) shows capital flows in 6 countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) that are affected by inflation, wage, Exchange Rate, Market Size and Trade Openness. The research method used is the regression of panel data for the period 2004-2019 from 6 countries in Southeast Asia obtained from the World Bank database. The results showed simultaneously and partially variable wage, exchange rate, market size and trade openness had a significant relationship with FDI inflows, except for variable inflation at α = 10%. Of the several variables studied, the dominant variable affecting the inflow of FDI in a country is the size of the market and followed by the wage level. In addition, of the 6 countries studied by countries that have great potential as recipients of FDI is Philippines.

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)0.002
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207