MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129545925 · doi:10.1177/2158244014522632

Polar Business Design

2014· article· en· W2129545925 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Technology, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderCore (optical fiber)SociologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar business design aims to enable entrepreneurs, managers, consultants, researchers, and business students to better tackle model-based analysis, creation, and transformation of businesses, ventures, and, more generically, collective endeavors of any size and purpose. It is based on a systems-thinking approach that builds on a few interrelated core concepts to create holistic visual frameworks. These core concepts act as poles linked by meaningful dyads, flows, and faces arranged in geometric shapes. The article presents two such polar frameworks as key findings in an ongoing analytic autoethnography: the three-pole Value−Activity−Stakeholder (VAS) triquetra and the four-pole Offer−Creation−Character−Stakeholder (OCCS) tetrahedron. The VAS triquetra is a more aggregated model of collective endeavors. The OCCS tetrahedron makes a trade-off between a steeper learning curve and deeper, richer representation potential. This article discusses how to use these two frameworks as well as their limits, and explores the potential that polar business design offers for future research.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.286 · 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