Market Orientation, Alliance Orientation, and Business Performance in the Canadian Biotechnology Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a large body of research supporting the importance of market orientation in determining performance. A growing body of research supports the notion that strategic alliance management competencies positively influence performance. Few empirical investigations have examined the importance of market orientation in the biotechnology industry, much less the effect of alliance orientation on performance, or the combined effect of market and alliance orientation on performance. This study explores these relationships among Canadian biotechnology companies with medical/healthcare focuses. Of the 394 Canadian medical/healthcare biotechnology companies identified, 81 usable responses were received, yielding a response rate of 20.6 percent. It was found that market orientation positively and significantly influenced business performance, supporting the first hypothesis. Additionally, alliance orientation positively and significantly influenced business performance, supporting the second hypothesis. However, when market and alliance orientation were examined together, alliance orientation’s effect on business performance remained positive and significant, but market orientation’s effect on business performance became negative and non-significant. This prompted a further analysis that investigated the presence of a mediation relationship. Market orientation was fully mediated by alliance orientation in its relationship with business performance. This study contributes academically by adding to market and alliance orientation research and by the successful development of a biotechnology-specific performance instrument. This study contributes to marketing and management strategy, as it outlines performance indicators that enable high performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".