MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033319199 · doi:10.1177/1476127006069575

Priorities, practices and strategies in successful and failing family businesses: an elaboration and test of the configuration perspective

2006· article· en· W2033319199 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

VenueStrategic Organization · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)MillerElaborationContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)Test (biology)Order (exchange)Balance (ability)BusinessMarketingSociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholars from the configuration school have suggested that businesses do well only when they are well-configured. Specifically, they have argued that businesses must first, match organizational priorities and practices to their chosen strategy; second, strike an appropriate balance so that no priority reaches dangerous extremes; and third, avoid gaps in priorities and practices that might be associated with such extremes.We will argue that these tenets have not yet been developed or explored in a sufficiently broad and systematic way. Using a conceptual framework developed by Miller and Le Breton-Miller (2005), this research undertakes to do that in order to assess the relevance of the configurational view in the context of large successful and failing family businesses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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