MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Governança e pensamento estratégico: uma crítica a Michael Porter

2002· article· pt· W2039104695 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Aktouf

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Administração de Empresas · 2002
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No presente trabalho, o autor procura analisar, ou mais exatamente desconstruir, a essência do pensamento dito de “estratégia” e de governança das organizações, atualmente dominante na cena acadêmica da administração. Servindo-se de uma leitura tanto histórica, heurística, como epistemológica e metodológica da obra e do sistema dominantes no assunto, denominado por ele “porterismo”, o autor faz um balanço crítico do conjunto de teorias da “estratégia” gerencial em geral e daquela do autor mais considerado no assunto: Michael Porter.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Administração de EmpresasSame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207