MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372061110 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2023.4.002

Strategic network: Managerial myopia point of view

2023· article· en· W4372061110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Hussein Manhal, Abbas Al-khalidi, Zaina Mustafa Mahmoud Hamad

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisBusinessCompetition (biology)Industrial organizationStrategic planningStrategic alignmentSuperpowerMarketingStrategic managementStrategic financial managementPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strategic network of any organization plays a significant role in the industry. Therefore, companies must study the factors hindering the construction of this network. Companies need a strategic network of alliances and partnerships to complement each other and constitute a superpower that competitors cannot overcome. This study explores the size of obstacles posed by managerial myopia in weakening the ability of organizations to build their strategic network. Current paper tests the influential relationship between managerial myopia and the ability of organizations to build their strategic network in one of the most important institutions within the oil sector. Results show a negative impact of managerial short-sightedness on an organization's ability to build a successful strategic network that enables it to coexist within an atmosphere of competition. This study recommends that organizations adopt the concept of managerial hyperopia as a valuable tool for organizational success.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207