MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906524532 · doi:10.1002/smj.2301

Buffering and enabling: The impact of interlocking political ties on firm survival and sales growth

2014· article· en· W1906524532 on OpenAlexaff
Weiting Zheng, Kulwant Singh, Will Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsPoliticsInterpersonal tiesIndustrial organizationStrong tiesBusinessResource (disambiguation)MarketingSociologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies suggest that political ties help firms survive or perform but do not examine the boundary conditions concerning which types of firms and which type of ties help firms. We draw from resource dependence and resource‐based theories to argue that political ties can improve both firm survival (labeled “buffering”) and performance (labeled “enabling”), with weaker firms gaining more from buffering and stronger firms gaining more from enabling. We further examine the relative impact of local and central ties. We test our hypotheses on the television manufacturing industry in China between 1993 and 2003. Results demonstrate the buffering roles of political ties, and under narrower conditions, their enabling roles. Local ties account for these outcomes, while central ties do not provide buffering or enabling benefits . Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations321
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic Management JournalSame topicPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesFrench-language works237,207