Visión crítica de la teoría de la gestión estratégica. Una evaluación metodológica y epistemológica
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an epistemological and methodological questioning the conceptual basis of the theory of Michel Porter's competitiveness and explanatory evidence weaknesses that jeopardize its worldwide recognition. Confronted with arguments Habermas, Morgan Galbraith, Klein and work Powel and Peffer, the Porterian theory exposes contradictions that show theoretical weakness, as the absence of building the concept of competitive advantage and epistemological poverty as the intended normativizo of this theory, whose arguments suffer positive reductionism and led to its engine to recognize the value of other adverse to his speech proposals. According to the author, the limited predictive capacities of their five forces, reveal the ideological intention of Potter, who assumes via easy validate the power of the powerful, while the methodological evade responsibility for their statements and in the recognition afinaza experts, rather than the thoroughness of their proposals.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it