The Dynamics of Research Alliances: Examining the Effect of Alliance Experience and Partner Characteristics on the Speed of Alliance Entry in the Biotech Industry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have moved beyond the dyadic level of an ongoing alliance and examined factors contributing to the success of entering a series of alliances. In this paper we expect biotechnology firms over time to learn from their alliance experience and to develop general alliance capabilities. Specifically, we expect the speed with which they enter into new research alliances, e.g. their alliance formation rate, to be affected by capabilities built up in prior alliances as well as by characteristics of their partners. We use longitudinal event history data for the complete population of US biotechnology firms for 1973–1999 to test four hypotheses about factors affecting the rate of new alliance formation. Our analysis suggests that the speed of entering research alliances is affected by prior experience of the focal firm, but not by partner characteristics. Our findings provide evidence that biotech firms learn how to learn more effectively from multiple research alliances; however, this effect is generalized and not tied to specific characteristics of the alliance partner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it