MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132874745 · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0566

Better with Age? Tie Longevity and the Performance Implications of Bridging and Closure

2010· article· en· W2132874745 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joel A. C. Baum, Bill McEvily, Tim Rowley

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersShandong Academy of SciencesUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBridging (networking)SyndicateInterpersonal tiesNetwork structureBusinessUnderwritingCentralityClosure (psychology)Strong tiesPsychologyIndustrial organizationSocial psychologyEconomicsActuarial scienceComputer scienceFinanceMarket economyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the extent to which performance effects of firms' network positions vary with the ages of the ties comprising those positions. Our analysis of Canadian investment banks' underwriting syndicate ties indicates that the performance benefits of closure ties increase with age, whereas benefits of bridging ties decrease with age. We also find that benefits yielded by hybrid network positions, combining elements of both closure and bridging, are greatest when old closure ties are combined with either very young or very old bridging ties. Our findings support the idea that the advantages firms gain (or do not) from their network positions depend on the relational character of the ties comprising them, highlighting the risk of theorizing structural network effects without also considering the relational and temporal dynamics associated with network positions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations133
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization ScienceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207