Modeling the evolution of competitive market structure via competitive group dynamics
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
Purpose This paper aims to examine the evolution of a competitive market structure over time through the lens of competitive group membership dynamics. Design/methodology/approach A new hidden Markov modeling approach is devised that accounts for the three sources of competitive heterogeneity involving managerial strategy, corporate performance and the impact of strategy on performance. In addition, some observed “entry” and “exit” states are considered to model firms’ entry into and exit from the market. The proposed model is illustrated with an investigation of the US banking industry based on a data set created from the COMPUSTAT database. This paper estimated the model within the Bayesian framework and devised a reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation procedure to determine the number of latent competitive groups and uncover the characteristics of each group. Findings This paper shows that the US banking industry, contrary to the prior findings of having a relatively stable structure, has, in fact, gone through dramatic changes in the past number of decades. Originality/value Contrary to prior work that has primarily focused on managerial strategy to study market evolutions, the competitive groups perspective accounts for all three sources of intra-industry competitive heterogeneity. In addition, unlike prior research, the analysis is not limited to firms remaining in the panel of study for the entire observation period. Such limitation results in missing the various changes that occur in the competitive market structure because of the new entrants or the struggling firms that do not survive in the market.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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