Applications and Contributions of Matching Methods to Strategy Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the theoretical properties of matching processes has increased significantly in recent years, and applications of a variety of matching methods to strategy research are just beginning to take off. Some of the matching methods now available to strategy researchers focus on the determinants of matches, others address the consequences of matches, and still others feature a combination of determinants and consequences. The objective of this symposium is to present current examples of frontier strategy research featuring matching methods, with applications in a variety of empirical contexts, including acquisitions, alliances, offshore outsourcing, and employment relationships. These applications serve to illustrate the similarities and differences among the various matching methods available and demonstrate how these methods can generate significant impact in strategy research. In addition, the symposium will provide useful information for other strategy researchers who may be considering the application of matching methods in future work, with discussion of issues such as, what empirical contexts might be suitable for each method, and what key identifying sources and assumptions are implicit in each method. Offshore Outsourcing and Buyer-Supplier Matching In The Mobile Phone Industry Presenter: Juan Alcacer; Harvard U. Presenter: Ramon Lecuona; Duke U. Presenter: Joanne E. Oxley; U. of Toronto Assortative Matching in Acquisition: Implications and Applicationse Presenter: DongHyun Shin; U. of Florida Presenter: Gwendolyn Kuo-fang Lee; U. of Florida Value Capture and Competitive Advantage: An Application to Bio- Pharmaceutical Alliances Presenter: Vlad Mares; INSEAD Presenter: Denisa Mindruta; HEC Paris Presenter: Elena Plaksenkova; HEC Paris Entrepreneurial Teams' Acquisition of Talent: A Two-Sided Approach in Tech Industries Presenter: Florence E M Honore; U. of Wisconsin, Madison Presenter: Martin Ganco; Wisconsin School of Business Competing for Talent through Contracts: Selection, Matching, Firm Organization and Investments Presenter: Orie Shelef; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business Presenter: Amy Nguyen-Chyung; U. of California, San Diego
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".