Strategic Reality Today: Extraordinary Past Success, but Difficult Challenges Loom
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
After quickly reviewing the early history and the subsequent extraordinary success of Strategic Management, we suggest that research in our field today shows signs of settling into a premature institutional equilibrium regarding some vital issues. This equilibrium is inconsistent with strategic reality today on important topical and methodological imperatives the field faces. We suggest that these “strategic realities” must be extensively and thoroughly addressed to ensure our continued success in the future. We also suggest addressing these realities is key to improving our research efforts and their managerial usefulness as we move forward in a rapidly changing world. In other words, they represent important research challenges the business and academic environments present us today. We assert that substantial progress on any subset of these strategic realities over the next 20 years could be an important step toward continued success of our field. We also note that such progress will likely be very difficult.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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