MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606332565

Middle-up-down and top-down approaches: strategy implementation, uncertainty, structure, and foodservice segment.

2006· article· en· W1606332565 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Harrington, K. W. Kendall

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategies and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusinessOperations managementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Middle-up-down and top-down approaches: Strategy implementation, uncertainty, structure, and foodservice segmentThis study explores the relationship between various profiles of the strategy implementation process and managers' perception of the task environment, complexity and dynamism.This study addresses the following research questions: Do differences exist between levels of perceived environmental change/uncertainty and users of middle-up-down and top-down strategy implementation approaches?And, does this relationship become more meaningful when ownership, firm structure and foodservice segment characteristics are considered?There has been very little research on the food service industry that assesses the relationship between eleven task environment measures of complexity and dynamism and the use of a predominately top-down or middle-up-down approach to the implementation of strategies.Using a sample of food industry managers, multiple discriminate analysis (MDA) was used to predict the use of implementation strategies.Substantive differences appear to exist between levels of perceived environmental change/uncertainty and users of middle-up-down and top-down strategy implementation approaches for foodservice firms.The ability to correctly classify users of middle-up-down and top-down approaches using a multivariate combination of environmental variables is improved radically when ownership, firm structure, and market segment classifications were are considered.Taken as a whole, the findings are most convincing and support the basic hypotheses.Study findings indicate that a broad brushstroke approach to determining whether a middle-updown or top-down is used or appropriate based on the perceived task environment may not be valuable.The results support previous findings in other industries in that the prediction is better for market segments served and the public versus private nature of the firms involved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE)Same topicBusiness Strategies and InnovationFrench-language works237,207