Market orientation, failure learning orientation, and financial performance
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
Although it is widely acknowledged that market orientation and learning orientation are necessary success factors, the exact dynamics of the relationship between the constructs and firm performance is not perfectly clear. This article offers a new depth of understanding to this research by introducing and exploring the role of failure learning orientation. Specifically, the roles of market orientation, learning orientation, and failure learning orientation are explored with performance. Unlike previous literature, learning orientation did not mediate the market orientation and performance relationship. Instead, support was found for market orientation’s direct effect on performance and its indirect effect via failure learning orientation. The mediating role of failure learning orientation suggests that more specific learning typologies may alter the market orientation, learning orientation, and performance relationship. The study adds to existing market orientation research and the growing failure learning orientation literature. It emphasizes failure learning orientation’s importance in enhancing competitiveness and superior performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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