MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138502576 · doi:10.1108/1525383x200500011

An Assessment of Cap Gemini’s Cross‐Border Merger With Ernst & Young Consulting

2005· article· en· W2138502576 on OpenAlexaff
Ayesha Malhotra, Alex Pierroutsakos

Bibliographic record

VenueMultinational Business Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Mergers and acquisitionsBusinessCore competencyStrategic managementCompetitive advantageCapital (architecture)Industrial organizationMarketingFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross‐border mergers are rising in number and scope even though, on average, firms do not profi t from them. In this article, we use interviews and secondary data to assess a historic merger between two global consulting giants ‐ Cap Gemini and Ernst & Young Consulting. The two fi rms had well‐articulated strategic reasons for merging. Nevertheless, their integration strategy failed to address key differences in business models, core competencies, and organizational practices. As a result, the combined firm suffered five years of diminished financial and competitive performance. Our study highlights the organizational complexities affecting mergers between human capital‐intensive firms.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultinational Business ReviewSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207