MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124900506 · doi:10.1002/smj.2341

When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management

2014· article· en· W3124900506 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Management Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderMultinational corporationStakeholder theoryBusinessSet (abstract data type)Industrial organizationMicroeconomicsEconomicsMarketingManagementComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instrumental stakeholder theory has largely emphasized the positive effects of investing in stakeholder cooperative relationships in an additive, linear fashion in the sense that the more investments the better. Yet investing in stakeholders can be very costly and the effects of these investments in firm performance are subject to complex internal complementarities and external contingencies. In this article we rely on set‐theoretic methods and a large international dataset of 1,060 multinational companies to explore theoretically and empirically some of the complementarities, costs and contingencies likely to arise in stakeholder management . Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.205 · 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