MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013980682 · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193554

Making Friends in Hostile Environments: Political Strategy in Regulated Industries

2008· article· en· W2013980682 on OpenAlexaff
Guy L. F. Holburn, Richard G. Vanden Bergh

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)EconomicsControl (management)BusinessIndustrial organizationPolitical economyPublic relationsMarketingPublic economicsEconomic systemPolitical scienceManagementSociologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine how regulated firms target their political strategies at multiple government institutions to gain more favorable regulatory agency decisions. Integrating the corporate political strategy literature and positive political theory literature, we derive propositions that (1) identify the political and regulatory circumstances generating hostile environments and (2) delineate the conditions under which firms will employ an indirect strategy instead of a direct strategy to induce changes in regulator decisions, identifying the specific political institutions a firm will target when adopting an indirect strategy. We develop a rich set of predictions about firms' political strategy that can form the basis for future empirical testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations171
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ReviewSame topicPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesFrench-language works237,207