Middle-up-down and top-down approaches: strategy implementation, uncertainty, structure, and foodservice segment.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it