MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830687873 · doi:10.1002/sej.1192

Explorative Versus Exploitative Business Model Change: The Cognitive Antecedents of Firm‐Level Responses to Disruptive Innovation

2015· article· en· W1830687873 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

VenueStrategic Entrepreneurship Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyPerceptionReal estateBusinessCognitionDisruptive innovationRisk perceptionTest (biology)MarketingBusiness modelPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a typology of incumbent adaptations to emerging disruptive business model innovations, based on two generic strategies: (1) explorative adoption of a disruptive business model; and (2) exploitative strengthening of the existing business model. We derive and test hypotheses concerning the cognitive antecedents of managerial intentions to embrace each of the two adaptation strategies. The results from our study of the real estate brokerage industry show that the explorative intentions are driven by opportunity perception, perceived performance‐reducing threat, and risk experience. Exploitative intentions are negatively associated with perceived critical threat and industry tenure and positively associated with risk experience. We contribute to the literature on disruptive business models by combining prior research into a definable framework and by testing the cognitive influences on strategic response. Copyright © 2015 Strategic Management Society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.571
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.114 · 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