MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083631289 · doi:10.1177/1052562906286697

Understanding How Resources and Capabilities Affect Performance: Actively Applying the Resource-Based View in the Classroom

2006· article· en· W2083631289 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

VenueOrganizational Behavior Teaching Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningResource (disambiguation)Knowledge managementValue (mathematics)DebriefingPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Strengths and weaknessesInclusion (mineral)Graduate studentsSustainabilityResource-based viewCompetitive advantagePedagogyComputer scienceBusinessMarketingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The resource-based view is a strategic framework for understanding why some firms outperform others. Its importance is reflected in its wide inclusion in strategy texts as a tool for assessing a firm’s internal strengths and weaknesses. This article outlines an experiential exercise that demonstrates how different bundles of resources and capabilities may explain differences in value created across firms. The primary benefit of this in-class exercise is that students actively apply Barney’s VRIO ( v aluable, r are, i nimitable, and o rganized) framework to understand why their team won or lost. The debrief can also focus on issues such as the impact of imitability on sustainability, why strategies emerge, and elements of a good strategy. Preliminary data from 18 undergraduate and graduate sections indicates that learning objectives have been consistently met.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.201 · 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