Do Alliances Lead to Competition? An Empirical Analysis of the US Biopharmaceutical Industry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends the learning race perspective to examine whether familiarity between firms developed through R&D alliances will motivate them to engage in technological competitions. Specifically, we argue that the payoffs of an alliance, in terms of common and private benefits that accrue to individual firms, are updated over the course of alliances between two firms. Firms are likely to reduce competition in their initial alliance contacts for the prospect of larger common benefits over private benefits. However, the likelihood of competition is heightened at later stages of their repeated interactions due to increased payoffs in private benefits. We further contend that this U-shaped relationship between the number of R&D alliances and technological competition is moderated by partner firm’s reputation of trustworthiness and technological similarity with the focal firm. Analyses of US biopharmaceutical firms during 1985 and 2004 support our hypotheses. Our study contributes to an enriched understanding of the dynamics of learning races across multiple alliances between firms, and the interplay between collaboration and competition between firms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it