MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131929041

The WeChat Ecosystem: Unleashing the Potential of the Long Tail to Stay Innovative

2022· other· en· W7131929041 on OpenAlexaff
Guo Bai, Luis Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetizationFunction (biology)Optimal distinctiveness theoryProduct (mathematics)Value (mathematics)Openness to experienceIndependence (probability theory)Sharing economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case illustrated the business ecosystem of WeChat from two perspectives. From an external perspective, the WeChat ecosystem was part of Tencent’s overall ecosystem. Using this perspective, the case examined the external relationships between the WeChat ecosystem and the external environment. Looking closely, the various parties collaborating on the WeChat platform formed an ecosystem. From an internal perspective, the case examined the internal relationships within the WeChat ecosystem. The platform was not a closed, impenetrable ecosystem. Expertise, resources, and value could flow in and out, enabling sharing and exchanges. However, it was not entirely open. Certain boundaries protected the independence and distinctiveness of the WeChat ecosystem. As a result, participants better suited to the nature of the WeChat ecosystem would thrive. Externally, WeChat was born with the mission of delivering Tencent’s new strategy to encourage openness and sharing, representing Tencent’s determination to change after its former core product, QQ, was accused of monopolistic behavior. Apart from serving the more extensive “Tencent ecosystem,” WeChat was also developing its own ecosystem. The two systems supported and empowered each other. Internally, WeChat helped various types of participants find their most appropriate roles within WeChat. Through product and function design, capacity empowerment, resource channeling, and rulemaking, WeChat ensured there was room for key enterprises, users, distributors, suppliers, and even competitors. All parties would find their proper places. In this newly established value network, WeChat would help capital, information, and traffic flow in an orderly manner. Different parties could seek monetization and exchange value to sustain their survival, co-exist with others, and contribute to a symbiotic environment. As traffic from individual users peaked, the WeChat ecosystem witnessed a shift toward corporate clients starting in 2017. Such a 2B strategy, however, invariably encountered bottlenecks. A few top players absorbed most of the traffic. WeChat faced the challenge of keeping innovation alive and vibrant within its ecosystem while balancing the development of various parties.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207