Process and emergence in contested terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to deal with the issue of market redefinition through an examination of a unique industry that has met with multiple obstacles: online gambling. The main research question is how markets get redefined when quantum technological change occurs, despite the lack of formal support and a highly fragmented industry structure, typical in online industries. Design/methodology/approach This industry lends itself to the analysis because of the intense competition for reconstruction of the field among state powers, professional associations, and global forces. The paper provides an archival and qualitative overview of the industry and identify the various forces competing for dominance in the market. It examines the competing logics in this industry and identify the sources and implications of such competition for emerging markets. Findings Both broad and specific contributions of this paper are discussed, namely the important role of professional and interest associations in industries without clear geographical boundaries, as well as the growing role for global moderating agencies. Research limitations/implications The paper provides a timely example of the ways in which firms organize in the modern business environment. In addition, it discusses the volatile and complex power structure in a global economy. While the research is necessarily processual and does not provide for multiple settings, the extent of legal implications here can be generalized to much smaller differences in global markets. Originality/value This paper provides support for the idea that, contrary to many concepts of industry acceptance and growth, legitimacy is not a requisite condition for an industry to prosper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".