Collective Economic Conceptualization of Strategic Actions by Québec Cidermakers: A Mixed Methods–Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this article is to estimate the spatial structure of the collective economic conceptualization of strategic actions by cidermakers in Québec. It employs group concept mapping, a mixed methods–based approach. Given the limited research on the economic conceptualization of horizontal coordination for guiding collective strategic action orientations, this contribution is threefold: methodological, empirical, and practical. Methodologically, the results show the perspective of horizontally coordinated cidermakers and use statistical estimates and retroduction as an inference mode to produce and structure the concept map. Empirically, the spatial economic conceptualization consists of a concept map with seven strategic action clusters organized around the notions of product supply and demand and highlights tensions between individual and collective strategic actions. Practically, measures of relative importance and relative feasibility are obtained for each cluster on the map, and implications are discussed. (JEL Classifications: D02, L23, L26, L66, Q18)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".