MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098844563 · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00346

Internal Market Failure: A Framework for Diagnosing Firm Inefficiency*

2003· article· en· W2098844563 on OpenAlexaff
Aidan R. Vining

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInefficiencyMarket failureCorporate governanceShareholderGovernment failureDomestic marketGovernment (linguistics)BusinessExternalityIndustrial organizationInternal conflictEconomicsMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The theory of market and government failure can be used to diagnose inefficiency within firms and to identify strategies to deal with these problems. Internal market failures (IMFs) – internal public good problems, internal negative and positive externalities, internal information asymmetries, internal monopolies, the presence of uncertainty – create inefficiencies within firms just as they do in normal markets. As well, self‐interested behaviour by executives and internal interest groups (rent‐seeking) are analogous to government, or governance, failures (IGFs). Associated with many of these internal market failure problems are generic solutions that can usefully inform executives in their efforts to improve efficiency within the firm. Internal governance failures, in contrast, normally require action by shareholders and boards of directors.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations57
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management StudiesSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207