MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904733012 · doi:10.1504/ijmed.2014.059851

Should small exporting technology enterprises use niche, strategic alliances, or both?

2014· article· en· W1904733012 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

VenueInternational Journal of Management and Enterprise Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicheAllianceBusinessResource (disambiguation)Industrial organizationStrategy implementationGlobal strategyStrategic managementTechnology strategyEcological nicheProcess managementComputer scienceMarketingEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares and evaluates the niche strategy as well as the alliance strategy for small exporting technology enterprises (SETEs). The literature indicates that either strategy is effective, as both serve the same purpose of relaxing resource constraints. However, the results of this study indicate that SETEs that adopt both strategies simultaneously perform significantly better than those that adopt only one strategy so one strategy does not duplicate the other. Moreover, SETEs cannot maximise returns either if they rely heavily on both strategies simultaneously. The optimal strategy for SETEs lies either on the combination of high level of niches and low level of alliances or on the combination of low level of niches and high level of alliances.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.207 · 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