Strategic Management Upside Down: Tracking Strategies at McGill University from 1829 to 1980
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A number of the fundamental premises of strategic management are put into question in a study that tracks the realized strategies of a prominent university over a century and an half. Amidst continual change in detail, there was remarkable stability in the aggregate, and nothing resembling quantum or revolutionary change in strategy ever occurred. This may be explained in some of the terms most popular in business today: “empowerment”, “venturing”, and especially “knowledge work”. Thus, while the typical university may seem very different from the typical corporation, its behaviour may in fact contain sobering messages for the strategic management of businesses. Résumé Le present article suit, sur une periode de plus d'un siecle et demi, I'evolution des strategies d'une universite bien connue et remet en question un certain nombre de premisses elementaires de la gestion strategique. Au cæur d'incessants changements qui affectent les details, on note dans l'ensemble une remarquable stabilite et l'absence de tout changement global ou revolutionnaire dans la strategie. Cette situation peut s'expliquer par les termes les plus en vogue, de nos jours, dans le milieu d'affaires, a savoir: « autonomisation », « developpement commercial », et tout particulierement « travail intellectuel ». Donc, bien que l'universite type puisse paraitre bien distincte de la compagnie type, son comportement peut en fait contenir d'importants messages pour la gestion strategique des entreprises.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".