MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283516539 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15070281

Valuing Collaborative Synergies with Real Options Application: From Dynamic Political Capabilities Perspective

2022· article· en· W4283516539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrejs Čirjevskis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic capabilitiesPoliticsValuation (finance)Context (archaeology)Conceptual frameworkBusinessKnowledge managementProcess managementMarketingComputer sciencePolitical scienceAccountingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to justify propositions that the dynamic political capabilities of collaborative partners to manage their institutional contexts are important drivers of collaborative synergies which can be valued by real options. To date, the institutional context of collaborative corporate strategies (strategic alliances, mergers, and acquisitions), particularly the analysis of the influence of government agencies on the synergies or unrealized synergies of collaborative ventures, remains unexplored. Moreover, the interdependence between the institutional dimensions of the collaborative strategies, the dynamic political capabilities of the collaborating partners, and collaborative synergies are needed to be integrated into new conceptual models and a new framework. This paper contributes to this request by providing a cohesive framework of micro-foundations with dynamic political capabilities and demonstrating an application of simple and compound sequentially combined real options for collaborative synergies’ valuation in the findings and discussion section. This paper makes several theoretical and empirical contributions to international business, strategic management, and corporate finance. The practical implication of the research is evidence that food retailers who want to grow with the latest consumer trends will need dynamic political capabilities to deal with the impact of an institutional context. Finally, this paper discusses research limitations and future work.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207