MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Local Business Voice

2011· book· en· W4242221959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. Bennett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissentLoyaltyPolitical scienceCompetition (biology)Public relationsPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This book is the first scholarly and systematic history of chambers of commerce. It challenges academic commentary on the early chambers by showing they were more numerous, persistent, and active than previously recognized. It demonstrates common origins in protest leading to a reform agenda, with diffusion down the size spectrum of cities, eventually reaching all towns and communities. Chamber voice increasingly linked lobbying with supplying a ‘bundle’ of business services. Using multiple theoretical frameworks, overlapping in time, the book traces for the first time the importance of commercial arbitration, coffee and reading rooms, and information and consultancy services as critical parts of the chambers' unique market position. For later developments it demonstrates the challenges arising from increasing partnerships with government, and competition with rival sector bodies. The book gives a critical overview of the key lobbies against the Corn Laws, over tariff reform and free trade, municipal socialism, and regulatory burden. A systematic analysis of members shows their links with early protest campaigns and religious dissent; in modern chambers it demonstrates the forces that underpin joining and lapsing decisions: exit, voice, and loyalty. The chambers investigated are those in the UK, Ireland, and the early USA and Canada, because this grouping has common origins and retains the unifying characteristics of being formed under common law as independent voluntary bodies. The book seeks to be definitive and exhaustive, covering all local chambers, in order to provide to other researchers, and current chamber managers, a firm foundation of assessment and long-term aligned local data.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.031

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesFrench-language works237,207