MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Merger as Marriage: Communication Issues in Postmerger Integration

2003· article· en· W2326897933 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Dooley, Brenda J. Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)NegotiationBusinessMergers and acquisitionsAffect (linguistics)Position (finance)Order (exchange)Industrial organizationVariation (astronomy)Service (business)MarketingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many health care organizations have found themselves involved in mergers, acquisitions, alliances, networks, and other forms of structural change in order to reduce costs, improve utilization and service breadth, increase market leverage, and reduce variation in demand. This article examines three levels of communication issues that interact with one another and impact the likelihood of successful postmerger integration: affect, discursive frame, and negotiating position.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207