The Role of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) in Supporting Strategic Management Decisions
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
Nowadays, the dynamism caused by constant changes to strategic decisions in markets poses an additional difficulty in an organization’s management. The strategic decisions made by managers can easily become obsolete. One of the major difficulties in managing a commercial organization is predicting, with some precision, the impact some strategic decisions have on the financial results. Business intelligence (BI) is widely used to help managers make strategic decisions. However, the methods used to achieve the conclusions are kept secret by BI company-based services. Modeling the environment may help predict the impact of an action in a real environment. A good model should provide the most accurate result of an applied action in a given environment. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are proven to be excellent in modeling environments with very high data noise. The same strategic action can have different results when applied to different organizations. A tool that allows the evaluation of an applied strategic action in an environment will be of great importance in the field of management. Modeling the environment will save time and money for the organization, allowing the performance of the strategic plan to be improved. If one evaluates the state of the environment after a certain strategic action is applied, it can be possible to mitigate its risk of failure. As we will verify, it is possible to use ANNs to model strategic environments, allowing precision in the prediction of sales and operating results using particular strategies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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