MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888638544 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v10n3p91

Building Competitive Edge

2018· article· en· W2888638544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nagasimha Balakrishna Kanagal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal socioeconomic and cultural dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisCompetitive advantageBusinessMarket shareIndustrial organizationMarket share analysisMarketingProfitability indexMarket orientationMarket microstructureOrder (exchange)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of a marketing strategy formulation and appropriate execution is to improve the long run financial performance of a firm / brand that includes improving market share, improving market capitalization, improving return of investment and payback period. The marketing strategist should take cognizance of the market forces that influences the payoffs to the firms. The influence of the competitive scenario on a firm / brand’s payoff is significant and could even at times be substantial in an oligopolistic industry-market structure, where strategic inter-firm dependence could be high. In this scenario, firms / brands need to be systematically prepared to find customer favor in a competitive market; this indeed is the realm of building competitive edge. In this study, we outline the path of improving ability to the process of marketing strategy formulation and examine in greater detail the process of improving the ability to compete or the buildup of competitive edge. A buildup of competitive edge is expected to improve the firm’s ability to competitive choice in the market place, through a process of improving the pro-activeness and reactiveness of the firm with respect to competitors to the satisfaction of (i) the consumers / target market, (ii) the market-society at large, as well as (iii) the policy makers regulating the competitive environment in the country / world. The improvement in the firm’s ability to competitive choice should reflect both in market share as well as market profitability and lead to improved market capitalization and superior long run financial performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicGlobal socioeconomic and cultural dynamicsFrench-language works237,207