MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041591216 · doi:10.1002/mde.1201

Competing in groups

2004· article· en· W2041591216 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial and Decision Economics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)CliqueEmbeddednessCentralityDiversity (politics)Value (mathematics)Investment (military)MicroeconomicsBusinessIndustrial organizationEconomicsPoliticsSocial psychologySociologyPsychologyMathematicsStatisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, we examine how the characteristics of clique structures affect the performance of firms embedded within the cliques. Although it is generally accepted in organization theory and strategic management that firms are embedded within ego and overarching industry networks that each affect their behavior and performance, there is little evidence on whether cliques are stable features of industry networks or affect firm behavior or performance. We theorize that the value of a clique to its members depends on (1) the network centrality of the clique and (2) the internal structure and organization (heterogeneity and inequality) of the clique. Our analysis of the Canadian investment banking industry from 1952 to 1990 provides empirical evidence of stable cliques, and indicates that while a clique's internal structure and organization materially affect firm‐level benefits of clique membership, its positional embeddedness within the industry network does not. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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