Inconsistencies in International Product Strategies and Performance of High-Tech Firms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores two unresolved issues in the international business literature. First, it is not clear why high-tech firms should standardize their product strategies across countries. Second, the rationale for high-tech firms to forge international strategic alliances (ISAs) is unknown. Drawing on organizational ecology and structural inertia theories, this study proposes that the interactions between a firm's structural inertia and environmental hostility are hazardous to firm performance and that ISAs weaken their impacts. Using data from 167 Canadian high-tech firms, this study supports that hypothesis and uncovers important implications for research and practice. Firms’ structural inertia makes inconsistency in international product strategies destructive. When structural inertia interacts with the environmental hostility associated with high-tech industries, the impacts can be stronger. High-tech firms resort to ISAs, using their partners to implement different product strategies to avoid adverse outcomes. Thus, ISAs are mechanisms that high-tech firms use to reduce the strategy inconsistencies across countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it