MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761143115 · doi:10.1177/0894486517735169

Unpacking the Black Box of Family Business Advising: Insights From Psychology

2017· article· en· W2761143115 on OpenAlex
Vanessa M. Strike, Alexandra Michel, Nadine Kammerlander

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Business Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnpackingCategorizationPsychologyBlack boxFamily businessSocial psychologyApplied psychologyMarketingEpistemologyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic research on family business advising is gaining momentum; however, the internal structure and mechanisms of advice giving and taking remain a black box. We conducted a systematic review that integrates findings from family business advising with those from psychology. Advising research in psychology has focused on understanding the subjective constructs and theoretical concepts composing the internal structures of advising. We develop an input–process–output framework to categorize and integrate both streams of literature on advising, introduce new concepts and variables from psychology that inform family firm advising, and identify important gaps to delineate avenues for future family firm research.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.252 · 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