Multi-period Model for Selection of Stakeholder Engagement Strategies of the Company
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study proposes a multi-period model for selection of the most suitable types of engagementstrategies of the company with different stakeholders in the context of uncertainty (risk). In the model considereda number of scenarios under which relationships of the company with the stakeholder groups vary periodically.For each scenario periodically predicted the dynamics of changes in the characteristics of such relations, andcalculated weighing coefficients of applicability of the type of engagement strategy of the company with eachstakeholder group. Coefficients obtained are reduced to integral coefficients based on which, using a generalizedcriterion that combines the expected value and the mean squared deviation, made the decision on the choice of aparticular type of engagement strategies of the company with each stakeholder. This approach allows to selectand rank the Pareto-optimal set of types of strategies and delimit the risk tolerance of the decision maker. Themodel also provides a method of selecting the most suitable type of strategy based on the expected utilitycriterion. The advantage of the proposed model is that it takes into account the risk tolerance of thedecision-maker.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it