How are Different Slack Resources Translated into Firm Growth? Evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to clarify types of slack resources and mechanisms through which these resources are translatedinto the growth of transition economy firms. It compares human resource slack and financial slack in terms oftheir ‘proactivity’ to unveil their differing effects on firm growth. This paper further highlights firm-levelentrepreneurial activities as a mechanism through which these resources are translated into firm growth. Datawas collected from senior managers through a questionnaire survey from manufacturing firms in China’sZhejiang province. This paper demonstrates that not all slack resources are readily turned into firm growth asargued in most of prior studies. In particular, only proactive HR slack is directly related to firm growth, whilefinancial slack fuels firm growth via HR slack. Besides, HR slack also propels firm growth partially throughvarious corporate entrepreneurial activities. This paper proposes and demonstrates that ‘proactivitity’ is a crucialdimension that explains the differing effects of slack resources on firm growth. In addition, corporateentrepreneurial activities are an underlying mechanism through which HR slack is translated into firm growth.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".