Revisiting the ‘concentration vs spreading debate’: perceived risk and strategic flexibility in decision-making following an unanticipated environmental market disruption
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
Managing risk is an important aspect of owner-managers’ decision-making; however, the impact of major environmental market disruptions remains largely under-researched. Underpinned by an effectuation lens, this study examines decision-making associated with the ‘concentration versus spreading debate’ (focusing on a single or limited number of product-market strategies rather than diversifying across a variety of product-markets). The context features post natural-disaster recovery strategies following a high magnitude earthquake that immediately ended firms’ sales within their local proximity. The study employs a longitudinal qualitative research design involving 16 smaller-sized wine producers in the Canterbury/Waipara Valley cluster of New Zealand, illustrating different degrees of strategic flexibility among owner-managers. Unique insights offer varying ‘how and why’ perspectives into decision-making regarding the extent to which product-market strategies differed across core and augmented product portfolios and geographic markets prior to and following the disruption caused by the unanticipated natural disaster.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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