Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents
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
This report describes the results of a ground‐breaking research study that measured the antecedents and consequents of effective human capital management. The research sample consisted of 76 senior executives from 25 companies in the financial services industry. The results of the study yielded a holistic causal map that integrated constructs from the fields of intellectual capital, knowledge management, human resources, organizational behaviour, information technology and accounting. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative measures in an overall conceptual model yielded several research implications. The resulting structural equation model allows participating organizations and researchers to gauge the effectiveness of an organization’s human capital capabilities. This will allow practitioners and researchers to more efficiently allocate resources with regard to human capital management. The potential outcomes of the study are limitless, since a program of consistent re‐evaluation can lead to the establishment of causal relationships between human capital management and economic and business results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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