MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391666009 · doi:10.1504/jgba.2023.10062245

The microfoundations of the innovation-internationalisation nexus: insight from SME manufacturers in Canada

2023· article· en· W4391666009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hela Chebbi, Majdi Ben Selma, Kamal Bouzinab, Alexie Labouze Nas

Bibliographic record

VenueJ for Global Business Advancement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofoundationsNexus (standard)InternationalizationBusinessEconomic geographyIndustrial organizationInternational tradeEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faced with the changing dynamics of the current global environment, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have increasingly realised the need to distinguish themselves through their capacity for innovation, but also internationalisation. Within research on SMEs, more and more studies are trying to explain the nature of the links between innovation and internationalisation (Athreye and Fassio, 2019; Basic, 2021; Pastelakos et al., 2023; Do et al., 2023). However, the mechanisms by which innovation promotes and influences the internationalisation of SMEs have received scant scholarly attention. Hence the following question: How do microfoundations contribute to fostering innovation within SMEs in an internationalization perspective? To fill this gap, this paper aims to better understand the mechanisms (individual, structural and process) that engender innovation and their role in SME engagement in foreign markets. Five case studies were conducted at Quebec SMEs operating in the manufacturing sector. The results provide insights about some important microfoundations: cognitive capital, open innovation culture, strategic intelligence, organic and agile structure.

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)0.000
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 score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJ for Global Business AdvancementSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207