Exploring firm strategy using financial reports: performance impact of inward and outward relatedness with digitisation
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
A firm’s success critically hinges on its strategies in selecting its portfolio of products and services. In this paper, we study how differentiation and market alignment at the offering level impact firm performance. To that end, we mine firms’ 10-K filings to characterise the portfolio of offerings through the lens of outward relatedness, inward relatedness, and digitisation. We define outward relatedness as a measure of alignment of firm offerings within its market space, inward relatedness as a measure of differentiation of firm offerings with its own past offerings, and digitisation as a measure of the firm’s focus on IT. We find that markets react positively to firms that operate with high levels of outward relatedness, low levels of inward relatedness and high levels of digitisation. However, we find that highly digitised firms do not have to conform to peers’ offerings. Digitisation enables these firms to differentiate by internally diversifying their offerings. Interestingly, our results show that only firms already highly digitised benefit from further digitisation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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