MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012684130 · doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00080

Knowledge, innovation and share value

2002· article· en· W2012684130 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

VenueInternational Journal of Management Reviews · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)DividendEarningsBook valueBusinessEconomicsPre-money valuationFinancial economicsMicroeconomicsAccountingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge–based enterprises (KBEs) are difficult to value owing to the relatively greater importance of their intangible assets, such as human capital and investment in innovation. Traditional valuation models rely on variables such as earnings, dividends and assets, which, for many KBEs, are either non–existent or are distorted by differing accounting practices. This paper reviews the various attempts by practitioners and academics to overcome these difficulties by such devices as different proxies for the valuation variables or different forms of the valuation equations. We then examine some theoretical approaches that provide novel approaches to valuation. Finally, we discuss the notion of the ‘fuzzy firm’, where traditional corporate boundaries have become amorphous, with the result that the firms require new valuation methodologies.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.225 · 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