MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

STRATEGIC DECISIONS FOR BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY: EVIDENCE BASED ON THE FIVE C ANALYSIS AND PEST ANALYSIS

2024· article· en· W4404301087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adedeji Daniel Gbadebo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Professional Business Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)BusinessKnowledge managementOperations managementComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This article develops and analyses the framework in promoting sustainable job satisfaction based on experience of a Canadian firm, the National Best Financial Network (NBFN). Method: The paper applies the Five C’s (Company, Customers, Competitors, Collaborator and Climate/Context) and the PEST (political, economic, socio-cultural and technological) analysis to evaluate the situations for the strategic decision and attainment of the objectives. Result and Discussion: The paper reveals that the industry remains an attractive one due to the ability to compete moderately with a similar product and the low switching costs of buyers. Implications: The implication is that growth potential and demand for the product/service is expected to increase, and the threat of substitute products/services are weak. While threats from new entrants is low, existing companies have the advantage of existing market share and can take active efforts to retain it. Originality/Value: The note provides information that identifies the issues affecting the growth and development of the firm, and the financial industry in Canada. Recommendations: We recommend regulatory policies that allow for ease of entry along with the ability to quickly assimilate into the market with existing technology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Professional Business ReviewSame topicHuman Resource and Talent ManagementFrench-language works237,207