MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563073053 · doi:10.17512/pjms.2016.14.1.13

A REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER DYNAMICS

2016· review· en· W2563073053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamás Koplyay, Mária Fekete‐Farkas, Doug Lloyd, Edit Feher–Toma

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Journal of Management Studies · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderDynamics (music)BusinessPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stakeholder relationships are a critical part of any businesses success, and should be properly managed to provide the best outcome for the firm during its market lifecycle. Our aim is to emphasize the importance of stakeholders along the firm lifecycle and present cultural dimensions of decision making with an overview of cultural aspects. The paper builds upon on the previous research of authors focusing on the very dynamic High-tech market in Canada. Our main statement is that the role and importance of stakeholders are changing and to show the directions or focus of stakeholders influence changes according to the stages in this market the interactions with, and among stakeholders’ changes remarkably depending on where the firm is in its market evolution or penetration. We also show the importance of stakeholders in the decision making process and analyzing the European market it can be seen that different cultural background even can affect the decisions also in a market with more similar background like Hungary and Germany. Market environment dictates the profile of the stakeholder ecosystem, and this reflects the profile of the marketplace. The relationship is mutually beneficial, or mutually destructive, and proper management is the only way to shift the latter to the former.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolish Journal of Management StudiesSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207