MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102724749

VALUING IT-RELATED INTANGIBLE CAPITAL

2010· article· en· W102724749 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntangible assetBusinessAsset (computer security)Order (exchange)Book valuePanel dataIndustrial organizationValue (mathematics)Business operationsThe InternetMarketingFinanceEconomicsEconometricsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of an effort to examine the value of intangible assets in the firm, our study is the first to create IT-related intangible asset stocks from firm-level survey data. We also use data on ITrelated business practices in order to understand the distribution of IT-related intangibles, and we create asset stocks to value research and development (R&D) and brand. Using a panel of 130 firms over the period 2003-2006, we find that intangible assets are correlated with significantly higher market values beyond their cost-based measures. Moreover, we estimate that there is a 3055% premium in market value for the firms with the highest organizational IT capabilities (based on a measure of HR practices, management practices, internal IT use, external IT use, and Internet use) as compared to those with the lowest organizational IT capabilities.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.013

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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