MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309595649 · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12681

The Context Sensitivity of International Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Role of Process and Product Innovation Capabilities

2022· article· en· W4309595649 on OpenAlexaff
Md Imtiaz Mostafiz, Mathew Hughes, Nazha Gali, Murali Sambasivan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurial orientationContext (archaeology)ContingencyBusinessResource (disambiguation)Product (mathematics)Industrial organizationProcess (computing)Resource dependence theoryProduct innovationKnowledge managementMarketingEntrepreneurshipEconomicsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drawing on a contingency perspective of the resource‐based view of the firm, we test the thesis that a relationship between international entrepreneurial orientation (IEO) and the international performance of export‐manufacturing firms is context‐sensitive and contingent on innovation capabilities. Using time‐lagged survey data from 369 Bangladeshi export‐manufacturing firms in a least developed country (LDC) as an extreme empirical context, we predict that process and product innovation capabilities are essential to the relationship between IEO and international performance among export‐manufacturing firms. We find that the effect of IEO on international performance is not positive; however, the relationship becomes positive when moderated by process and product innovation capabilities. International entrepreneurial firms in an LDC succeed when they can better align IEO‐driven efforts with these capabilities. Our study advances knowledge on the context sensitivity of IEO and embellishes a resource‐based theory of IEO.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of ManagementSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207