MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414279410 · doi:10.1515/zug-2023-0036

Treating the Firm Like an Extended Family:

2025· article· en· W4414279410 on OpenAlexaffabout
William A. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeFrontierDrillDrillingWork (physics)Parent company

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Boyles Brothers Drilling Company was a Canadian diamond drilling firm primarily engaged in mineral exploration. At the end of the Second World War, it was well positioned to take part in the resource-based expansion of the Canadian economy. Headquartered in Vancouver it expanded operations across Canada. Its expertise was sought out in other parts of the world where mineral exploration was occurring, and the company became a multinational. The company was vertically integrated, manufacturing both diamond drill bits and drilling equipment. Its operations were, for the most part, undertaken on the frontier fringe characterized by an absence of transportation and communications infrastructure. Distances were vast, electronic communication non-existent and the work transient. This paper delves into how to manage a firm that spanned the globe in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. There appears to be two aspects of the management strategy: (1) treating the firm like an extended family and (2) having head office personnel on the ground in the geographically diverse operations as much as possible. The managerial style and strategy made Boyles Brothers an early successful Canadian-based multinational.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→