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
Coopetition — the simultaneous collaboration and competition be- tween firms — has recently risen to become a major subfield in the strategic management domain. Actually, a subfield labeled “coope- tition strategy” has begun to emerge and take shape. This essay reflects how the findings in the coopetition strategy literature align with some of the classic questions in strategic management and discusses the contributions of the six papers published in the SMR Special Issue on Coopetition Strategy. In the context of coopetition strategy, we reflect on (1) how firms gain competitive advantage and improve their performance, (2) how firms create and capture value, (3) the optimal boundaries (and overlaps) between firms, and, last but not least, (4) how firms make strategic decisions. We hope that this essay and the special issue as a whole may generate even greater momentum to consolidate, theorize, and position coopeti- tion strategy within the broader strategic management literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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