MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102724749

VALUING IT-RELATED INTANGIBLE CAPITAL

2010· article· en· W102724749 on OpenAlexaff
Adam M. Saunders

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Information SystemsSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207