MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123997018 · doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.5.612

Are All Managers Created Equal?

2009· article· en· W3123997018 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompetitor analysisStrategic thinkingHierarchyMarketingThe InternetBusinessStrategic planningIndustrial organizationEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some managers are better than others. Using the cognitive hierarchy framework of Camerer, Ho, and Chong (2004) , the authors develop a structural econometric model that estimates the level of strategic thinking. In the model, firms with a high level of strategic thinking are more likely to correctly conjecture the expected actions of their competitors. The authors apply this model to decisions by managers at 2233 Internet service providers of whether to offer their customers access through 56K modems in 1997. The model is validated by showing that firms with a higher estimated probability of strategic thinking were more likely to have survived through April 2007. The estimation results show considerable heterogeneity in the degree to which firms behave strategically and suggest that strategic ability affects marketing outcomes; specifically, a simulated increase in strategic ability means that fewer firms offer the technology to their customers.

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 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)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.435
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.086 · 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