Integrated Framework of Antecedents and Effects of Market Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier research concerning market orientation-related issues focuses on conceptualization of market orientation and its ingredients; various antecedents of market orientation; and impact of market orientation on firm’s entrepreneurial orientation, strategies, innovativeness and performance. This article is a descriptive and qualitative review of earlier research concerning all these issues. It also discusses the mediators and moderators that affect relationship between market orientation and firm’s performance. This article provides the holistic picture of what it means to be market oriented, what needs to be done to be better in market orientation and how market orientation affects firm’s performance. The article summarizes the propositions that emerged from the extensive review of literature, followed by the presentation of a proposed integrated framework of antecedents and effects of market orientation with its likely implications. These propositions and the proposed integrated framework provide a concrete base for carrying out future research studies. Thus, this article is significant value addition to the body of knowledge. Review of earlier research established that there exists a positive, significant and robust link between market orientation and firm performance. The review also indicates that market orientation has positive associations with an organization’s innovativeness and orientation mediated by innovation creates superior performance of a firm. The review also states that in earlier research, it has been found that there exists a close association between market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation as well as between market orientation and marketing planning/operational marketing strategies. Developing and improving on a firm’s market orientation may make a firm’s capabilities become more distinctive over the long run, resulting in sustainable competitive advantage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".