MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Drivers of Governance Modes and Reconfiguration

2019· article· en· W2965159769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Razvan Lungeanu, Elena Vidal, Emilie R. Feldman, Jaideep Anand, Xavier Castañer, Pierre Dussauge, Nikolaos Kavadis, William Mitchell, Louis Mulotte, Srikanth Paruchuri, Charlotte Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationCorporate governanceDivestmentAllianceConversationIdeologyState (computer science)ManagementPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringEconomicsLawComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This symposium seeks to shed light on what drives firms to engage in different governance modes. Four papers comprise this symposium, and a discussant will build bridges among the different pieces and raise the conversation to a higher level of discussion of governance modes and resource reconfiguration. Two of the papers focus on the antecedents driving firms to engage in a particular governance mode (i.e., alliances, exit), whereas the other two seek to explore dynamic components in the sequential use of different modes (i.e., alliances vs. independent operations; acquisitions and divestitures). These four papers expand among different technology governance modes, theoretical lenses, and single- vs. multi-mode of governance. CEO Ideology and Investor Reactions to Alliances Presenter: Srikanth Paruchuri; Pennsylvania State U. Presenter: Razvan Lungeanu; Northeastern U. Alliance Performance and Subsequent Make-or-Ally Choices. Evidence from the Aircraft Manufacturing Presenter: Charlotte Ren; Fox School of Business, Temple U. Presenter: Louis Mulotte; Tilburg U. Presenter: Pierre Dussauge; HEC Paris Presenter: Jaideep Anand; Ohio State U. The Influence of Organizational Investors on Unrelated Businesses’ Exits Presenter: Xavier Castaner; U. of Lausanne Presenter: Nikolaos Kavadis; U. Carlos III de Madrid Exploring the Inter-Related Use of Acquisitions & Divestitures in Reconfiguration Strategy Presenter: Elena Vidal; City U. of New York, Baruch College Presenter: William G. Mitchell; U. of Toronto

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicCompetitive and Knowledge IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207