MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392366408 · doi:10.1007/s11187-024-00884-5

HGX: the anatomy of high growth exporters

2024· article· en· W4392366408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stjepan Srhoj, Alex Coad, Janette Walde

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Business Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Research CentreJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversität InnsbruckHrvatska Zaklada za ZnanostNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsBusinessWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)EntrepreneurshipProduct (mathematics)CommerceInternational tradeEconomicsIndustrial organizationFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous work has found that a small number of export s uperstars contribute disproportionally to the economy’s overall exports. Differently from export superstars , this study is the first to define high growth exporters (HGXs) (that are not export superstars ) as a new firm category. We provide their economic importance and depict their micro-level anatomy. By tracking HGXs in Croatia for over a quarter of a century, 44 out of 100 export superstars in 2019 were previously HGXs. HGXs represent only 0.5% of all firms and 18% of high growth firms (HGFs) in the economy, but are responsible for about 25% of new exports and 5% of new jobs. During their growth episode, HGXs hire more employees from technology intensive industries with previous experience in exporting. They often hire on a single year work contract, and more frequently send new employees to work abroad. HGX also increase their presence in more advanced markets, increase the number of new export products and decrease their reliance on the largest product or largest export market. We argue HGXs represent an under-researched category of firms.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Business EconomicsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207