MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531872058

Old and New Asset Boundaries: A Review Article on Measuring Capital in the New Economy

2007· review· en· W1531872058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Schreyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational productivity monitor · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)National accountsWork (physics)EconomicsIntangible assetValue (mathematics)Capital (architecture)Boundary (topology)BusinessAccountingEngineeringComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern economies, technical change is rapid and competitive edges of companies are closely related to 'intangible' capital. While some intangibles are covered by established capital measures in the national accounts, many are outside the measurement boundary. The NBER volume at hand brings together the most up-to-date empricial and conceptual work that aims at measuring intangibles comprehensively. The different articles show that there is neither a single definition nor a single method to measure intangibles. This is not surprising given the very nature of these assets. The many challenges for measurement also mean that more work needs to be done before considering a broad set of intangibles assets for recognition in the national accounts. This reduces in no way the value of current and future research on the issue and the NBER volume constitutes an excellent reference for analysts and national accountants.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational productivity monitorSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207