MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071554452 · doi:10.1108/14691930010324188

Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries

2000· article· en· W2071554452 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nick Bontis, William Chua Chong Keow, Stanley Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalHuman capitalStructural capitalBusinessContext (archaeology)Relational capitalService (business)Capital (architecture)Industrial organizationTertiary sector of the economyIndividual capitalMarketingEconomic capitalEconomicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this empirical study is to investigate the three elements of intellectual capital, i.e. human capital, structural capital, and customer capital, and their inter‐relationships within two industry sectors in Malaysia. The study was conducted using a psychometrically validated questionnaire which was originally administered in Canada. The main conclusions from this particular study are that: human capital is important regardless of industry type; human capital has a greater influence on how a business should be structured in non‐service industries compared to service industries; customer capital has a significant influence over structural capital irrespective of industry; and finally, the development of structural capital has a positive relationship with business performance regardless of industry. The final specified models in this study show a robust explanation of business performance variance within the Malaysian context which bodes well for future research in alternative contexts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1,924
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual CapitalSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207