Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change
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
Using a dynamic capabilities lens, this study examines how technological and complementary capabilities affect firms' abilities to enter emerging technologies. The empirical evidence from a sample of pharmaceutical firms entering the new biotech fields indicates that both technological and complementary capabilities potentially affect firms' entry into emerging technologies and entry mode. However, the results also show that capabilities in the traditional technology and the emerging technology have different effects. Firms with capabilities in the emerging technology are more likely to enter new technological fields and more likely to use internal development in doing so. Complementary capabilities also increase the rate of entry into emerging technological fields. However, capabilities in traditional technology are found to be unrelated to the propensity to enter new fields, and to the choice of entry mode. These results are consistent with insights from the literature on dynamic capabilities and evolutionary theory. We examine the implications of these results for literatures on strategic alliances and technological competition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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