MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066053893 · doi:10.1108/09696470410538233

Intellectual capital in Egyptian software firms

2004· article· en· W2066053893 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Seleim, Ahmed Ashour, Nick Bontis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Learning Organization · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalContext (archaeology)BusinessDeveloping countryVariety (cybernetics)Economic growthEmpirical researchKnowledge managementEconomicsFinanceGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of knowledge around the world varies significantly with developed countries possessing most of the world's current intellectual capital (IC) compared to developing countries. Most IC research has been conducted in a variety of international settings such as the UK, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Austria, Malaysia, the USA, and Ireland. However, no empirical research has been conducted at the organizational level in the field of IC in Arab countries. These nations are socially, economically, and culturally different from most countries in the aforementioned list. This study describes the IC in Egyptian software firms. The study's objective is to contribute to the IC theory development by building a measurement system in an unique context. This paper highlights the key IC indicators as reported by Egyptian CEOs. Ultimately, the resultant report provides them with a direction for building a strong knowledge base for future IC development.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Learning OrganizationSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207