What do Social Activists Look for? Identifying Configurations of the Corporate Opportunity Structure
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
Prior research on the corporate opportunity structure for social activism has yet to consider the possibility that social activists are likely to perceive and evaluate the attractiveness of firms as viable targets holistically–that is, as complex configurations (i.e., prototypes) of characteristics, rather than as lists of independent factors. As such, extant research on the corporate opportunity structure has not addressed why and how configurations of firm characteristics cause some firms to be more highly targeted than others. I seek to develop a comprehensive understanding of configurations of the corporate opportunity structure for social activism; that is, combinations of firm characteristics that make such firms more highly targeted by social activists than others. To do so, I integrate extant theory and research on the key features of corporations that impact the likelihood of a firm being targeted by social activists. I use fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to investigate the combinations of corporations' features that exist among S&P 500 firms that increase the likelihood that such firms will be targeted by social activism. From this analysis, I develop an initial typology of different corporate opportunity structures and thus, offer a mid-range theory of the corporate opportunity structure for social activism.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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