MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198222681 · doi:10.37380/jisib.v5i1.112

Towards an environmental awareness model integrating formal and informal mechanisms – Lessons learned from the Demise of Nortel

2015· article· en· W2198222681 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

VenueJournal of Intelligence Studies in Business · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyBankruptcyBusinessKnowledge managementCognitionSet (abstract data type)Competitive advantagePublic relationsPsychologyMarketingComputer scienceSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study uses multiple lines of enquiry to better understand how Nortel went from being a ‘global powerhouse’ at the turn of the century to filing for bankruptcy just nine years later. It tracks competitive intelligence as well as other environmental awareness capabilities of the company and theorizes on how they have contributed to its rise and fall. The findings suggest that Nortel was a company with significant environmental awareness capability in the early 90’s that had all but lost this competency by the year 2000, which impacted their ability to make decisions consistent with a changing environment. Through interviews with 48% of all Nortel officers that were there during the period of interest as well as other stakeholders, the researchers identify a two-layer typology that includes a set of cognitive factors as well as three broad categories of monitoring practices that can help companies better understand their environment: 1) formal external monitoring practices, such as competitive intelligence units; 2) informal external monitoring practices such as board meetings with members with industry connections and knowledge, and 3) internal monitoring practices with external insight capability, such as performance management reviews and accounting reports. Cognitive factors identified include decision maker orientation, as either technical or business, internal vs., internal focus, cognitive complexity and open mindedness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.186 · 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