MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970472781 · doi:10.5539/ass.v15n9p30

Horizontal Versus Vertical Coopetition: The Tunisian Manufacturing Industry

2019· article· en· W2970472781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asma Zgarni

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoopetitionHorizontal and verticalIndustrial organizationBusinessSample (material)MarketingEconomic geographyEconomicsMicroeconomicsGame theoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By opting for coopetition strategy, some companies prefer the horizontal one while others opt for the vertical. Furthermore, some coopetitions are rather aggressive, while others are rather cooperative. Nevertheless, the reasons for using one or the other of these strategies remain still ambiguous. This article aims to explain the reasons, both internal and external, for the use of each type of coopetition and its nature. By adopting a quantitative hypothetico-deductive approach, and through a sample of Tunisian industrial companies, this study confirms that the need for strategic capabilities holds the strongest weight that the competitive intensity in the explanation of the coopetition type and its nature.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207