The mutual construction of knowledge transfer and shared context in capability development within the networked MNC
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent with the knowledge-based view of the firm, capability augmentation in the multinational corporation (MNC) entails the adaptation and diffusion of knowledge within a network of globally dispersed subsidiaries. We used case study methodology to examine the transfer of knowledge practices within four MNCs in order to identify specific mechanisms through which social context impacts efficiency and effectiveness of transfer, as well as the resulting development of associated capabilities. The primary findings of this study are the identification of mechanisms that headquarters can use to create mutual interdependencies among subsidiaries, which in turn hasten capability development and enhance knowledge flow; and the mutually constructive roles of knowledge transfer and shared context, through promotion of organizational knowledge use. The manner in which these coordination and control mechanisms are implemented facilitates the integration of different units within the networked MNC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it