MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030840092 · doi:10.1108/00251740610656287

Dominant organizational logic as an impediment to collaboration

2006· article· en· W2030840092 on OpenAlex
Caroline Boivin, Joanne Roch

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

VenueManagement Decision · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityValue (mathematics)Strategic managementBusinessManagementMarketingKnowledge managementSociologyComputer scienceEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to establish the role of dominant logics to assess the success potential of strategic alliances. Design/methodology/approach An empirical validation of an approach based on the theory of conventions was carried out through an analysis of strategic alliances initiated by Apple involving the licensing of the Macintosh operating system. Findings The analysis reveals the presence of modes of justification issuing from the world of inspiration, which seems to oppose the merchant and industrial worlds, which are most conducive to successful strategic alliances. Originality/value The analysis of dominant logics within Apple Computer demonstrate that the inspirational logic is opposed to all forms of strategic alliances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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