Value capture theory: A strategic management review
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
Research summary : This article provides the first review of a growing line of scholarly work in strategy that we refer to as “value capture theory.” The common thread in this work is its use of cooperative game theory as a general, mathematical foundation upon which to build a deep understanding of firm performance in market settings. Our review: (1) describes the primary elements of the theory; (2) highlights important blindspots that it resolves with respect to existing theoretical approaches; (3) calls attention to several of its novel insights; and (4) summarizes a myriad of applications and empirical studies that have appeared in recent years using value capture theory . Managerial summary : Traditionally, theoretical claims in strategic management have been supported by informal, qualitative reasoning. Recently, however, a new line of theoretical work based upon mathematical methods, known as “value capture theory,” has been gaining in popularity. This article reviews the recent advances in this line with a particular emphasis upon a number of its important insights, several of which challenge longstanding propositions from the traditional line. For managers, the formal nature of value capture theory is well‐aligned with data‐driven analyses of strategic situations . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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