MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134240883 · doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0186

<b>Research Note</b>—Investments in Information Technology: Indirect Effects and Information Technology Intensity

2009· article· en· W2134240883 on OpenAlexafffund
Neeraj Mittal, Barrie R. Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of CalgaryArizona State UniversityOhio State University
KeywordsProductivityProduction (economics)Capital intensityIndustrial organizationValue (mathematics)Production functionFunction (biology)Manufacturing sectorCapital (architecture)EconomicsManufacturingInformation technologyMeasure (data warehouse)BusinessMicroeconomicsEconometricsMarketingComputer scienceLabour economicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies measure the value of information technology (IT) by focusing on how much value is added rather than on the mechanisms that drive value addition. We argue that value from IT arises not only directly through changes in the factor input mix but also indirectly through IT-enabled augmentation of non-IT inputs and changes in the underlying production technology. We develop an augmented form of the Cobb-Douglas production function to separate and measure different productivity-enhancing effects of IT. Using industry-level data from the manufacturing sector, we find evidence that both direct and indirect effects of IT are significant. Partitioning industries into IT-intensive and non-IT-intensive, we find that the indirect effects of IT predominate in the IT-intensive sector. In contrast, the direct effects of IT predominate in the non-IT intensive sector. These results indicate structural differences in the role of IT in production between industries that are IT-intensive and those that are not. The implication for decision-makers is that for IT-intensive industries the gains from IT come primarily through indirect effects such as the augmentation of non-IT capital and labor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.003

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 head0.301
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations96
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Systems ResearchSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207