| <!DOCTYPE html> |
| <html lang="en"> |
| <head> |
| <meta charset="UTF-8"> |
| <title>SPJIMR Thematic Analysis Report — Session 53</title> |
| <style> |
| body { font-family: 'Segoe UI', Arial, sans-serif; max-width: 960px; margin: 40px auto; padding: 20px; color: #222; line-height: 1.6; } |
| h1 { color: #1a237e; border-bottom: 3px solid #1a237e; padding-bottom: 10px; } |
| h2 { color: #283593; margin-top: 40px; } |
| h3 { color: #3949ab; } |
| table { border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; margin: 16px 0; font-size: 14px; } |
| th, td { border: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 8px 12px; text-align: left; } |
| th { background: #e8eaf6; font-weight: 600; } |
| tr:nth-child(even) { background: #f5f5f5; } |
| blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ff9800; padding: 8px 16px; background: #fff3e0; margin: 16px 0; } |
| hr { border: none; border-top: 2px solid #e0e0e0; margin: 30px 0; } |
| @media print { body { max-width: 100%; margin: 0; } } |
| </style> |
| </head> |
| <body> |
| <h1>SPJIMR Corpus — Thematic Analysis Report</h1> |
| <p><strong>Generated:</strong> 29 May 2026, 20:41 IST |
| <strong>Session ID:</strong> 53 |
| <strong>Total Papers Analyzed:</strong> 10 |
| <strong>Themes Identified:</strong> 1</p> |
| <hr /> |
| <h2>1. Executive Summary</h2> |
| <p>This report presents the findings of a systematic thematic analysis conducted on a corpus of <strong>10 academic papers</strong>. Using SPECTRE2 embeddings and DBSCAN clustering, the analysis identified <strong>1 distinct thematic clusters</strong>.</p> |
| <h3>Research Methodology Distribution</h3> |
| <table> |
| <thead> |
| <tr> |
| <th>Methodology Type</th> |
| <th>Count</th> |
| <th>Percentage</th> |
| </tr> |
| </thead> |
| <tbody> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>6</td> |
| <td>60.0%</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Conceptual/Theoretical</td> |
| <td>2</td> |
| <td>20.0%</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Empirical Research</td> |
| <td>1</td> |
| <td>10.0%</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Case Study</td> |
| <td>1</td> |
| <td>10.0%</td> |
| </tr> |
| </tbody> |
| </table> |
| <hr /> |
| <h2>2. Thematic Overview</h2> |
| <table> |
| <thead> |
| <tr> |
| <th>#</th> |
| <th>Theme</th> |
| <th>Papers</th> |
| <th>Cohesion Score</th> |
| <th>Keywords</th> |
| </tr> |
| </thead> |
| <tbody> |
| <tr> |
| <td>1</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>9</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>—</td> |
| </tr> |
| </tbody> |
| </table> |
| <hr /> |
| <h2>3. Detailed Theme Analysis</h2> |
| <h3>Theme 0: Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</h3> |
| <ul> |
| <li><strong>Papers in cluster:</strong> 9</li> |
| </ul> |
| <p><strong>Key Findings / Representative Excerpts:</strong></p> |
| <ol> |
| <li>Strategic and Serendipitous Knowledge Arbitrage: What We Know and What Remains Underexplored?. Knowledge arbitrage, conc</li> |
| <li>Charting the path toward a greener world: A review of facilitating and inhibiting factors for carbon neutrality. The car</li> |
| <li>Diving into the uncertainties of open innovation: A systematic review of risks to uncover pertinent typologies and unexp</li> |
| <li>Knowledge arbitrage: what are the risks, and do they matter?. Purpose – It is largely acknowledged that arbitrating the</li> |
| <li>Conceptualizing customer experience in multi-actor platforms. Customer experience (CX) is a critical marketing concept,</li> |
| </ol> |
| <p><strong>Representative Papers:</strong></p> |
| <table> |
| <thead> |
| <tr> |
| <th>Title</th> |
| <th>Authors</th> |
| <th>Journal</th> |
| <th>Type</th> |
| </tr> |
| </thead> |
| <tbody> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Meaning-Oriented Consumption: A systematic review and research agenda</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>SDG-Embeddedness in Business School Operations: State-of-the-Art Literature, Gro</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Diving into the uncertainties of open innovation: A systematic review of risks t</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Strategic and Serendipitous Knowledge Arbitrage: What We Know and What Remains U</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Charting the path toward a greener world: A review of facilitating and inhibitin</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Knowledge arbitrage: what are the risks, and do they matter?</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Empirical Research</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Navigating the challenges of fake news and media trust: a bibliometric study</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Conceptualizing customer experience in multi-actor platforms</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Conceptual/Theoretical</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>Operations Strategy 4.0 – What Will It Be Like and How Will It Lead to the Ideal</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>N/A</td> |
| <td>Conceptual/Theoretical</td> |
| </tr> |
| </tbody> |
| </table> |
| <hr /> |
| <h2>4. Research Gaps & Future Directions</h2> |
| <p>No significant research gaps detected in this corpus.</p> |
| <hr /> |
| <h2>Appendix: Full Paper List</h2> |
| <table> |
| <thead> |
| <tr> |
| <th>#</th> |
| <th>Title</th> |
| <th>Theme</th> |
| <th>Type</th> |
| <th>Citations</th> |
| </tr> |
| </thead> |
| <tbody> |
| <tr> |
| <td>1</td> |
| <td>Meaning-Oriented Consumption: A systematic review and research agenda</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>2</td> |
| <td>SDG-Embeddedness in Business School Operations: State-of-the-Art Liter</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>3</td> |
| <td>Diving into the uncertainties of open innovation: A systematic review</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>4</td> |
| <td>Strategic and Serendipitous Knowledge Arbitrage: What We Know and What</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>5</td> |
| <td>Charting the path toward a greener world: A review of facilitating and</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>6</td> |
| <td>Knowledge arbitrage: what are the risks, and do they matter?</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Empirical Research</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>7</td> |
| <td>Navigating the challenges of fake news and media trust: a bibliometric</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Literature Review/Survey</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>8</td> |
| <td>Conceptualizing customer experience in multi-actor platforms</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Conceptual/Theoretical</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>9</td> |
| <td>Operations Strategy 4.0 – What Will It Be Like and How Will It Lead to</td> |
| <td>Knowledge Arbitrage & Carbon Neutrality</td> |
| <td>Conceptual/Theoretical</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| <tr> |
| <td>10</td> |
| <td>Spectrum Industries: International Market Entry</td> |
| <td>Topic -1</td> |
| <td>Case Study</td> |
| <td>0</td> |
| </tr> |
| </tbody> |
| </table> |
| <hr /> |
| <p><em>Report generated by SPJIMR Corpus Analysis Pipeline — 2026-05-29 20:41</em></p> |
| </body> |
| </html> |
