MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Crisis Management and Corporate Strategy in African Firms: Towards a Contingency Approach

2007· article· en· W1508620990 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contingencies and Crisis Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingencyContingency planInstitutional logicContext (archaeology)Crisis managementPerspective (graphical)SolidarityOrder (exchange)BusinessField (mathematics)Strategic managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementSociologyEconomicsManagementMarketingComputer scienceEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crisis management logic suggests that preparing for a crisis should be a critical part of organizational strategy. This article aims to explore the difficulties in translating this logic into business practices in the African context. By comparing the application of the three most popular theoretical perspectives used in the field of strategy with the context of African firms, we come to the conclusion that another approach, the contingency perspective, must be integrated in order for African companies to manage small business crises successfully. This study is based on four case studies. It ends with two proposals for future research and practice in crisis management in African firms: (1) introducing a logic of solidarity; and (2) introducing the idea of the ‘palabre’. 1

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.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.256 · 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