MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040334474 · doi:10.1177/0170840602233002

The Ties that Bind: Strategic Actions and Status Structure in the US Investment Banking Industry

2002· article· en· W2040334474 on OpenAlexaff
Stan X. Li, Whitney Berta

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHierarchyDyadInvestment (military)Banking industryHomophilyInvestment bankingBusinessRanking (information retrieval)Industrial organizationPhenomenonOrganizational structureMarketingEconomicsSociologyMarket economyFinanceManagementSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We applied Giddens' (1979, 1984) structuration theory to investigate the US investment banking industry and found support for the notion that industry network structure impacts the strategic actions of the firms embedded in it, and that the status hierarchy component of the industry structure is reproduced by the dyad-level interactions of firms in this industry. Investment banks conform to the homophily phenomenon — they tend to transact with others in the industry of similar status. Status ranking also enables high-status banks to maintain an extensive exchange relationship with other banks, while status ranking constrains low-status banks to transact repeatedly with banks with which they have previously transacted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization StudiesSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207