MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404667660 · doi:10.5430/jms.v15n2p29

The Honeycomb and the SME: Facilitating Growth Through Social Media in a High Technology Enterprise

2024· article· en· W4404667660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barry Ardley, Jialin Hardwick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaBusinessHoneycombSocial enterpriseMaterials scienceComputer sciencePublic relationsComposite materialWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how a SME owner manager utilised the LinkedIn social media platform to create strategic growth for a new high technology firm in the business-to-business market. The primary research draws on a series of in-depth phenomenological interviews carried out with the owner manager. Findings, when viewed in the context of the owner managers local logic of action and the related opportunity focus, indicate that LinkedIn can provide a valuable conduit for the development of strategic growth opportunities in an SME. Interview analysis details a series of successful routes to growth that could provide the basis for analysis and action for similar firms, in similar situations. In terms of originality, the social media honeycomb construct is deployed as a theoretical and practical device, through which to structure and explore key issues. These include the importance of individual subjectivity in strategy making, a firm’s use of resources, and its growth in terms of the adoption and use of social media, in a dynamic product and market setting. Findings will be of value to other researchers interested in the areas of SME strategy, social media and the use of phenomenology as a research tool.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207