Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary We show significant variation in the ways mainstream international business strategy (IBS) theories have addressed the discovery and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities in the established multinational enterprise (MNE). We adopt an extended “individual—opportunity nexus” perspective and suggest a fourfold repositioning of IBS research on MNE intrapreneurship. First, by acknowledging opportunities in activity types not historically considered as the subject of intrapreneurship, such as imposed resource reconfigurations as well as acquisitions and divestitures. Second, by paying more attention to how bundles of opportunities emerge over time, and to their sequence. Third, by recognizing more systematically different opportunity types, ranging from incremental to radical. Fourth, by analyzing more thoroughly the origins of opportunities, including those that arise from MNE weaknesses. Managerial Summary International business strategy (IBS) theories can help managers in multinational enterprises (MNEs) to better understand the unfolding of intrapreneurship. First, business decisions typically considered as merely cost‐driven, including resource reconfigurations, acquisitions, and divestitures, can involve major intrapreneurial opportunities. Second, opportunities do not just appear randomly and in isolation: it is typically bundles of opportunities that emerge over time and in a particular sequence, and these bundles are closely intertwined with the MNE's own strategy that may unearth these opportunities. Third, MNE executives need to recognize more systematically different opportunity types, ranging from incremental to radical because each will require different managerial practices. Fourth, it is not only an MNE's strengths but also its weaknesses that can drive intrapreneurial action.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".