MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805550879 · doi:10.5430/bmr.v7n2p49

Corporate Strategy, Governance Structure and Organization Performance: A Research Agenda

2018· article· en· W2805550879 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Management Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintCorporate governanceUnderpinningRelation (database)Extant taxonKnowledge managementMultidisciplinary approachEmpirical researchBusinessProcess managementManagement scienceSociologyComputer scienceManagementEconomicsEpistemologySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate strategy plays a critical role in the proper functioning of an organization as it provides the blueprint that guides the corporate direction of an organization while governance structure presents an organization with a framework for the distribution of responsibilities and resources to achieve organization performance. While the constructs have been sufficiently studied and documented in various studies separately in relation to organization performance, few studies have been undertaken to study the two constructs together to understand how they jointly explain organization performance. This paper presents a review of the extant theoretical and empirical literature on the two constructs in relation to organization performance. Relevant underpinning theories are reviewed, constructs described and their operational indicators identified and compared with empirical work and emergent knowledge gaps identified. The paper finally proposes a multidisciplinary based theoretical model suitable to address the gaps identified to advance knowledge in the area and calls upon future research to empirically test the propositions of the study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.220 · 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