MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101265665 · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0484

Is the Resource-Based View a Practical Organizational Theory?

2009· article· en· W2101265665 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

VenueOrganization Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource-based viewIdentification (biology)Resource (disambiguation)Knowledge managementSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceEmpirical researchTheory of the firmTest (biology)BusinessIndustrial organizationMarketingCompetitive advantageEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the question of whether the resource-based view (RBV) is a practical theory for managers. We test the ability of the RBV to provide two pieces of practical information: (1) the identification of the very few strategic assets from a large set of assets, and (2) the estimation of the functional form of how such strategic assets' critical VRIO characteristic levels relate to firm performance. We do so by modeling the tenets of the RBV and adjusting them in a simulation. We place ourselves in the shoes of the managers by using standard empirical methods on the simulated data to determine whether the RBV does provide practical information. We then discuss what can be done for academics and managers given that determination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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