MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136219359 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.3970

Relationships Under Stress: Relational Outsourcing in the U.S. Airline Industry After the 2008 Financial Crisis

2021· article· en· W3136219359 on OpenAlex
Ricard Gil, Myongjin Kim, Giorgio Zanarone

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

VenueManagement Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringOutsourcingBusinessContext (archaeology)CredibilityFinancial crisisScope (computer science)Value (mathematics)Industrial organizationRelational contractEconomicsFinanceMarketingMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies how firms restructure their relational contracts in the face of permanent shocks to the value of their relationships. In the context of the U.S. airline industry, we argue that major carriers enter self-enforcing agreements with their outsourced regional partners because a key aspect of airline operations—the exchange of landing slots under adverse weather—is formally noncontractible. We show empirically that major and regional airlines did not terminate their relational contracts after the 2008 crisis but rather, restructured the scope of such contracts in a way that restored their credibility. In particular, we show that a major airline was less likely to continue outsourcing a route to a regional partner after the 2008 crisis the lower the present discounted value of their preexisting relationship and hence, the larger the negative effect of the crisis on the relational contract’s “self-enforcing range.” This paper was accepted by Joshua Gans, business strategy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.201 · 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