MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100161187 · doi:10.1002/smj.418

The effect of within‐industry diversification on firm performance: synergy creation, multi‐market contact and market structuration

2004· article· en· W2100161187 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

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForbearanceDiversification (marketing strategy)Industrial organizationScope (computer science)Economies of scopeBusinessCompetition (biology)EconomicsCompetitive advantageMicroeconomicsMarketingFinanceEconomies of scaleComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the effect of diversification upon intra‐industry performance. We propose that intra‐industry diversification promises three sets of benefits, which, separately and in combination, provide firms with a competitive advantage: synergies arising from economies of scope; premiums from mutual forbearance enabled by multi‐market competition; and efficiencies derived from market structuration. The additive and integrative effects of the first two have not been explored. The benefits of market structuration remain untheorized and thus untested. The test of our theoretical model in the Canadian general insurance industry indicates that mutual forbearance provides advantage under specified conditions, that market structuration also provides advantages, but that diversification per se does not. Copyright © 2004 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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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