International Market Selection Decisions – A big data artificial intelligence approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the role of big data analytics (BDA) in international market selection (IMS) decisions. It is based on a study of South African companies that used the TRADE-DSM (Decision Support Model) big data analytics tool to help in making these decisions. While there is much theory on the potential use of big data analytics and artificial intelligence for international business in general and international market selection decisions in particular, there is very little research on how these tools are used when making this important decision. This article reports on a study that examined: whether big data analytics was used in making international market selection decisions, how important it was relative to other sources of information; how it was used in the international market selection decision-making process; and what factors led to acceptance of big data analytics output. Results from the surveys and interviews both with those who generated the TRADE-DSM reports and the users of the reports (the decision-makers) are presented to provide deeper insights into the role of big data analytics in international market selection decisions. The results showed that while big data analytics is very important (rated third-highest information source), it is one of many sources of information used in the process and that human sources (visits to the market, attendance at trade shows and conferences) are considered the most valuable. Regarding what prompts the acceptance of big data analytics in the international market selection process, the study found that knowledge of the system, trust in the person providing the report and the relationship between the person providing the report and the decision-maker are the most important factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".