MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916557777 · doi:10.23912/9781911396635-4092

Generic Stakeholder Management Strategies

2019· book-chapter· en· W2916557777 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGoodfellow Publishers eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderSWOT analysisStakeholder analysisProcess managementProcess (computing)BusinessSet (abstract data type)Strengths and weaknessesStakeholder managementStrategic planningKnowledge managementManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPublic relationsMarketingPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A continuous planning process for stakeholder management is described. To get started, and even for organizations already engaged with stakeholders, a set of questions is provided concerning internal and external stakeholders. A SWOT analysis might help, looking at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats attached to each stakeholder or type of stakeholder. A third planning technique is stakeholder mapping, described for both internal and external use. A number of generic approaches to formulating strategy are reviewed, and they each take a somewhat different approach to classifying stakeholders and identifying appropriate strategies for managing relationships. From these we have provided a blended strategy matrix, but users will have to settle on their own approach appropriate to their circumstances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.165 · 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