MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068746780 · doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00235

Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of collaboration

2002· article· en· W2068746780 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

VenueR and D Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)Western UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceBusinessPrincipal (computer security)Face (sociological concept)Key (lock)MarketingPhase (matter)Public relationsKnowledge managementPolitical scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent surveys indicate that executives of technology companies consider strategic alliances to be central to their competitive strategies. Yet the barriers to successful alliances are formidable. In many instances, these barriers develop in the early stages of an alliance. This study identifies and analyzes the types of challenges that companies face in the start–up phase of their alliances. It is based on a survey and interviews with executives in the Canadian high technology industry. The study finds that the principal challenges in the first year of an alliance relate to relationship issues between the partners. It suggests stronger attention to these issues in the design and implementation of an alliance. The paper concludes with guidelines to build and sustain effective working relationships between partners.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.167 · 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