MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527706370

Evaluating the Russian Forest Sector: Market Orientation and Its Characteristics

2001· article· en· W2527706370 on OpenAlex
J.B. Wignall

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMarket orientationLinear discriminant analysisOrientation (vector space)Set (abstract data type)Order (exchange)Identification (biology)BarterMarket analysisBusinessCashRough setIndustrial organizationComputer scienceMarketingArtificial intelligenceEconomicsMathematicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the analysis of data coming from the RUSCOMP database. The purpose of this analysis is to identify those characteristics of Russian forestry firms that are perceived to be important for a firms market orientation. The two orientations of particular interest are market-focused orientation, where the firm is responsive to its markets needs, and planned economy orientation, where the firm relies on non-market relationships. 
\n
\nAnalysis was conducted using two methods, discriminant analysis and rough sets methodology. Both methods attempt to discover relationships in data that includes observations divided into homogeneous classes described by a set of attributes. Discriminant analysis proved less successful in describing the data, with only 41% of the cases being correctly classified. Rough set analysis provided better results and when applied to a dataset described by a reduced set of the attributes, it correctly evaluated 52% of the cases. The paper describes how a reduced set of the attributes was derived and also evaluates different possible options of such a reduction. In the last stage of the evaluation, decision rules with appropriate characteristics were generated and subsequently analyzed in order to extract knowledge statements allowing for the identification of the factors that contribute to a forestry fir market orientation. 
\n
\nIn summary, the analysis indicated that market-oriented firms rely on cash-based transactions to acquire their raw materials and do not experience significant supply problems. They also export a large portion of their finished goods. They are being paid for their services, as opposed to receiving barter credits, and engage in formal arrangements. In their business dealings these firms are avoiding a reliance on relationships in favor of the market-based mechanisms. 
\n
\nIn contrast, planned economy firms often rely on barter. They experience problems with timber supply that are most likely related to cash flow problems. Their primary market is a domestic one, where it is easier to engage in informal arrangements based on relationships.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.298 · 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