MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385740130 · doi:10.1177/00207152231188405

Globalization, foreign direct investment, and child mortality: A cross-national analysis of less-developed countries, 1990–2019

2023· article· en· W4385740130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven A. Mejia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign direct investmentEconomicsForeign portfolio investmentGlobalizationStock (firearms)Investment (military)Developing countryVariety (cybernetics)Development economicsMacroeconomicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceOpen-ended investment companyMarket economyPoliticsReturn on investmentGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social scientists have long debated the impacts of foreign investment for developing countries. However, the relationship between foreign investment and child mortality is still heavily contested among comparative international social scientists despite decades of research. I bring new cross-national evidence to bear on this contested debate, where the competing arguments of neoclassical economic theory and foreign investment dependency theory are evaluated using fixed effects, dynamic, and two-stage least squares panel regression models. I find that inward foreign direct investment stock exerts a beneficial effect on child mortality in less-developed countries, net of relevant statistical controls. These results are also robust to a variety of regression diagnostics and alternative choices of econometric specification. These findings contribute to a growing body of literature finding that traditional sociological measures of foreign direct investment—in some cases—generate beneficial effects in less-developed countries.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207