MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594735016 · doi:10.1108/03090560610657787

The quest for competitive, business and marketing intelligence

2006· article· en· W1594735016 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Marketing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourOriginalityConsistency (knowledge bases)MarketingValue (mathematics)MacroBusinessSociologyComputer scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Seeks to examine three empirical studies carried out in Canada, the UK and Europe with comparisons drawn on their approach and findings. Design/methodology/approach The studies were compared using a framework, developed by the authors, along four central elements and two influencing drivers. Findings Little measurement consistency or output value was evident. The current focus on isolated studies, carried out at a macro level, is discouraged. Practical implications Future studies need greater rigour, and consequently might be of more value to academics and practitioners. Originality/value The lack of research consistency is highlighted. Recommendations are made for stronger adhesion with other disciplines to develop a robust research agenda.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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