MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054587391 · doi:10.2308/jmar.2002.14.1.135

A Critique of Milgrom and Roberts' Treatment of Incentives vs. Bureaucratic Controls in the British North American Fur Trade

2002· article· en· W2054587391 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

VenueJournal of Management Accounting Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyIncentiveProfit sharingFur tradeEconomicsProfit (economics)ManagementPolitical scienceMarket economyMicroeconomicsFinanceLawEconomic history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their 1992 textbook, Economics, Organization and Management, Milgrom and Roberts used 19th century fur trading companies as examples of effective (the incentive-based North West Company) and ineffective (the bureaucratic-based Hudson's Bay Company) organizations. Findings from detailed examinations of both companies' archives suggest that Milgrom and Roberts were not completely accurate in their depictions of the two companies' incentives and bureaucratic controls. In response to complexities of intercontinental trade, both companies used bureaucratic controls for coordination as well as profit sharing to motivate senior managers. More generally, the findings raise questions about Milgrom and Roberts' relatively negative conclusions concerning the effectiveness of bureaucratic controls.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.234 · 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