Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case starts by exploring the brief history of Alibaba from 1999 to 2020 from the perspective of strategy and values. The case shows how a company's strategy and values are mutually interdependent, but each retains a degree of autonomy. Values are based on and then applied to the implementation of strategy. The case next describes how Alibaba used values to influence and check employee behavior. It highlights Ali’s unique value-centric rules, organizational structure, and value-based KPIs while describing the company's evolution toward a more flexible approach concerning values. It links this evolution to the company's different development stages. The case concludes by specifying the challenges Ali faced and would face in enforcing and popularizing its values, namely (i) business expansion was bound to dilute Ali's values; and (ii) business diversification would introduce other business cultures. The main purpose of this case study is to identify potential solutions to these challenges.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".