MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries

2000· article· en· W2079921132 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Rowley, Dean M. Behrens, David Krackhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddednessAllianceSemiconductor industryIndustrial organizationContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringManufacturing engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network researchers have argued that both relational embeddedness—characteristics of relationships—and structural embeddedness—characteristics of the relational structure—influence firm behavior and performance. Using strategic alliance networks in the semiconductor and steel industries, we build on past embeddedness research by examining the interaction of these factors. We argue that the roles relational and structural embeddedness play in firm performance can only be understood with reference to the other. Moreover, we argue that the influence of these factors on firm performance is contingent on industry context. More specifically, our empirical analysis suggests that strong ties in a highly interconnected strategic alliance network negatively impact firm performance. This network configuration is especially suboptimal for firms in the semiconductor industry. Furthermore, strong and weak ties are positively related to firm performance in the steel and semiconductor industries, respectively. Copyright © 2000 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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2,040
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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