Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreign direct investment (FDI) implies a lasting interest by an enterprise resident in one country in another enterprise in another country. The estimated global flow of FDI for 2012 is 1.4 US$ trillion. In the first two quarters of 2012, transition in developing countries attracted over 50% of global FDI for the first time. China was the largest recipient country in the same period, followed by the United States. Direct investment is viewed as a method of securing determining influence on the overseas operation. Investors tend to provide other resources such as knowledge, management techniques, technology, and marketing strategy. FDI is a strategic option for firms that undertake it and for the states that seek to attract and regulate it. Managerial players are free to make and implement strategic choices, albeit within the limits of the structural circumstances they find themselves in. The practice of FDI in the last quarter of the twentieth century has been growing rapidly. Three groundbreaking intellectual perspectives spurred by Coase, Hymer, and Penrose provided the initial tremors causing the paradigm to begin to shift. Until a theory of the transnational enterprise and FDI emerges that is capable of bridging the epistemological gap that separates its territory from that of international strategic management (ISM), Dunning's OLI framework will be taken to be the extant theory of transnational enterprise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.238 |
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".