MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278297860 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n2p46

Thinking about Entry of Firms: A Theoretical Discussion

2016· article· en· W2278297860 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Garavaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndowmentCompetition (biology)Interpretation (philosophy)EntrepreneurshipMechanism (biology)Industrial organizationEconomicsMarketingBusinessEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the factors that play a role in determining entry of new firms into markets from a theoretical point of view. We analyse the traditional interpretation of entry as a mechanism of re-equilibrating profits towards their long-run level. Then, we concentrate on other theoretical approaches, showing how the characteristics of technological innovation, the endowment of skills and competencies of the entrants, the role of information signals, the phases of the industry life cycle, the sociological concepts of legitimization and competition, and the psychological aspects might play fundamental roles in explaining new entry. The paper debates possible cross-fertilizations among theories: The discussion results in some fruitful intertwinements among the different relevant features about entry and spawns new collaborative and interdisciplinary research to create additional knowledge about entry. Insights about international entrepreneurship (IE) are also discussed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0150.022
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207