MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family Business Research: A Strategic Reflection

2004· article· en· W1997540883 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

VenueFamily Business Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily businessDialog boxPreferencePublic relationsSociologyManagementBusinessEngineering ethicsMarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As research on family business continues to grow, six key trends have become evident. These trends include a continuing pursuit of a few research topics such as succession, a strong preference for practice-oriented research methods, a tendency to borrow heavily from other disciplines without giving back to these fields, and a strong preference to talk to other researchers conducting research on family firms—failing to communicate with scholars from other disciplines. Therefore, we suggest strategies to expedite the growth of family business research toward better understanding the paradoxes faced by family business managers, deepen insights into the problems they encounter, improve rigor in reported research, find ways to promote a dialog with scholars in sister disciplines, and give back to the disciplines from which we borrow heavily.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.159 · 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