MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050416963 · doi:10.1002/smj.437

Environment–strategy co‐evolution and co‐alignment: a staged model of Chinese SOEs under transition

2004· article· en· W2050416963 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Tan, David Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)ChinaIndustrial organizationTransition (genetics)BusinessDynamic capabilitiesEconomic systemMarketingEconomicsProcess managementPolitical scienceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Economic reform in China has attracted growing attention from around the world owing to its significance for theory and practice. What has been largely missing in the literature is the temporal dimension, i.e., the changes over time in key variables such as organizational environment, firm strategic adaptations, and the performance implications. In this study, we investigate environment and strategic adaptations 12 years after Tan and Litschert examined these issues in 1990. Following a staged model, the study found that (1) organizational environment and firm strategic adaptations have co‐evolved over time, (2) a new configuration has emerged and is related to improved performance, and (3) such a relationship is moderated by the stage during transition in which firms were founded. Specifically, firms founded since 1990 are more proactive and innovative than firms that had existed in the previous stage. 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations328
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic Management JournalSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207