Squeeze the Lemon? Suppliers’ Innovation Under the Rule of Buyer Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Product innovation in alliances brings several advantages that, in the light of the communicative constitution of organization perspective (COO) can increase through coorientation among firms. The Montreal School of CCO conceptualizes communication as coorientation, which by texts and conversation shapes relationships. While advancing the innovation, firms enter conversations and develop and interpret texts that can have directive connotations. Especially powerful, market orientated, and focal (buyer) firms can, after the initial alliance contract, implement texts with a directive meaning. Such buyer directives contain functionalities, designs, etc. integrating novel information and component changes. Suppliers gain understanding of buyers’ expectations and knowledge from the directives that can breed further conversations and texts improving innovation. However, the buyer-centered coorientation can delimitate suppliers’ autonomy and, thus, innovation. The results of our quantitative study on 470 firms show that buyer directives can improve or reduce suppliers’ product innovation, depending on the learning approach in the alliance.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".