Channel Conduct, Performance, and Entrepreneurship: An Account of the Motion Picture Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that the relationship between profits and channel power determines whether entrepreneurial activity will emerge from within existing firms or in the form of new start-ups, and that successful entrepreneurship diffuses more rapidly when it emerges from within existing channel members. We demonstrate our position in the context of a historical study of the motion picture industry. The structure of production and distribution channels evolves with time, and successful entrepreneurial activity serves as the catalyst for this evolution. In this context, we propose that channel conduct and performance jointly determine the nature of successful entrepreneurship. Specifically, we view the relationship between profits and channel power as determining whether entrepreneurial activity will emerge from within existing firms or in the form of new start-ups. Further, we argue that the effect of successful entrepreneurship is more rapid when it emerges from existing channel members. To demonstrate our propositions, we trace the historical development of the motion picture channel from 1912 to present. The nascence of the motion picture industry dates back to 1885, when George Eastman developed the flexible roll of photographic film. The first successful motion picture was recorded by Louis La Pierre in 1888, and a multitude of innovators quickly followed suit. By 1912, the motion picture channel was clearly formed, with communities of producers, distributors, and exhibitors working together to bring films to consumers. We examine the nature of the successful entrepreneurial activity that has given rise to evolution in the motion picture channel from 1912 to present.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".