MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968243881 · doi:10.1057/emr.2010.6

The resource‐based view revisited: Comparative firm advantage, willingness‐based isolating mechanisms and competitive heterogeneity

2010· article· en· W1968243881 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

VenueEuropean Management Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisCompetitive advantageImitationFactoringIndustrial organizationResource (disambiguation)IncentiveComparative advantageBusinessProduct (mathematics)Resource-based viewEconomicsMarketingMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We take a step beyond the resource‐based view that resource characteristics (i.e., valuable, rare, inimitable and non‐substitutable) are the sole basis for isolating mechanisms. Instead, we apply Ricardo's principle of Comparative Advantage in a two‐firm, two‐product scenario to show how additional isolating mechanisms can result from economic incentives that provide managers with distinct strategic choices. Specifically, our analysis indicates that managers' strategic decisions based on comparative firm advantage (CFA) affect their willingness to imitate competitors, even when their firms are fully capable of such imitation. This willingness, in turn, helps to determine the direction of firm expansion. We discuss how Ricardo's CFA logic can provide specific guidance for managers regarding effective firm strategies in specific comparative advantage situations by factoring in both internal efficiencies and competitive pressures when designing and implementing rent‐seeking strategies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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