Interorganizational IT investments and the value upstream relational capital
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
Purpose The focus of this article is upstream relational capital, the intangible value of a firm's business relations with its suppliers. The paper aims to propose and test a valuation model of an organization's upstream relational capital that incorporates the leveraging impact of IT investments. Design/methodology/approach A survey was carried out of 159 CEOs in the wireless telecommunication industry. Findings Evidence suggests that IT and non‐IT factors contribute to explain abnormal return on relational investments. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study is based on a single industry and relational capital is valued by CEO using psychometric scales. Practical implications This study shows how IT‐related information helps external investors to value a firm's upstream relationship capital and hence assess the impact of interorganizational IT investments on the firm's valuation. Originality/value These results militate for more transparency in regard to relational investments and the relational context of the firm in the management discussion section of the annual report.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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