MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043932874 · doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9250-2

What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy

2010· article· en· W2043932874 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

VenueSmall Business Economics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipSet (abstract data type)EconomicsStrategic managementKey (lock)Point (geometry)Industrial organizationMicroeconomicsEmpirical evidenceBusinessMarketingManagementEcologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The starting point of this study is Gibrat’s Law, which is contrasted with strategic management. This logic is subsequently applied to a group of remarkably dynamic, high-growth firms: gazelles. Strategic management theory emphasises the importance of firms adjusting strategies in response to changes in the external environment. In our study, it is used to explain several key empirical findings using a novel British data set containing information on more than 100 gazelles. These findings help explain: (1) why Gibrat’s Law of random firm growth processes does not generally hold, (2) which strategy and environmental variables have a predictable influence on firm performance and (3) why routine application of ‘best practice’ strategies is unlikely to foster firm growth in a changing economic environment. In so doing, this paper contributes to the large body of literature on small-firm growth.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.191 · 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