MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515739036 · doi:10.1108/14691931111123395

Intangible assets and performance

2011· article· en· W1515739036 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

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalStructural capitalIncentiveOriginalitySample (material)BusinessValue (mathematics)Relational capitalGovernment (linguistics)Capital (architecture)Industrial organizationMarketingHuman capitalIndividual capitalEconomicsEconomic capitalMicroeconomicsComputer scienceCreativityFinanceEconomic growthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the nature of intellectual capital in small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and how it is linked to strategy and performance. Design/methodology/approach Using structural equations, a multivariate model is presented where multiple relations are tested between different components of intellectual capital and performance. The model is tested first on a unique sample of 267 SMEs and second on two subsamples where SMEs are grouped according to their strategic profile. Findings Findings confirm that SMEs that adopt different strategies organize their intellectual capital in a particular and adapted way. When an attempt is made to link intellectual capital components to performance, it is noticed that the latter is strategy specific, just as the variables that influence performance. Prospectors dominate defenders on most intellectual capital components. Research limitations/implications Use of secondary data may provide less precise results that could make an incentive to conduct other studies with specific determinants of intellectual capital and try to make clear definition and measurement of this concept and its components. Practical implications Even if the results have an exploratory nature, they confirm that SMEs organize and develop their intellectual capital in conjunction with their needs and strategic profile, revealing their heterogeneity. This has implications on the ability to generalize specific behaviors to all SMEs, and could prevent government from developing public policies that are supposed to fit all SMEs. Originality/value Most research on intellectual in capital SMEs is conducted on specific sectors linked to activities requiring high levels of knowledge or technology. But these results concern a small proportion of SMEs. This study expands those analyses to a much broader variety of sectors, revealing some links between specific components and performance taking into account strategic orientation. This is the first study on manufacturing SMEs that considers various non‐technological sectors and strategic profiles.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.175 · 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