MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403425683 · doi:10.1080/00076791.2024.2409433

The pursuit of socioemotional wealth and the management of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1809–1863

2024· article· en· W4403425683 on OpenAlex
Tolly Bradford

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryBayBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceHistoryPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although generally described as a publicly owned joint-stock company motivated to bring dividends for its investors, during one of the most important phases of its history (1809–1863), the Hudson’s Bay Company operated as a family business. This paper outlines why the HBC should be considered a family business during these years, and the significance of this for understanding both the HBC and the nature of family business more broadly. Three related arguments are made throughout: that the four families controlling the HBC were motivated by what Gomez-Mejia et al. describe as socioemotional wealth (the social and emotional value family owners ascribe to their companies); that this fact shaped company governance structure, key policy decisions, how it hired employees, and how it managed succession; and, that these different families sometimes pulled the company in contradictory directions.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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