When “trust” becomes more or less salient for alliance performance? Contextual effects of mutual influence, international scope, and coopetition
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
Extant research on strategic alliances has established that contractual controls do not provide a complete safeguard to avert an alliance failure, and that alliance governance needs to be reinforced with relational norms such as trust. However, there is scant research evidence available on whether interfirm trust can be significant under the trying contexts the alliances typically face like rivalry, power conflicts, and cultural or institutional barriers. Employing a relational exchange perspective, we examined whether the espoused positive effect of interfirm trust on alliance performance is moderated by mutual influence and coopetition between partners, and the international dimension of an alliance. Based on the survey and archival data on 223 strategic alliances, we found that interfirm trust was quite significant to alliance performance and that the link between trust and performance was more salient in alliances with high mutual influence and coopetition, whereas it was less salient and weaker in international alliances.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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