When is the whole bigger than the sum of its parts? Bundling knowledge stocks for innovative success
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As firms engage in building different R&D capabilities, they confront a crucial question: what configuration of knowledge stocks is most likely to increase innovative success? This article argues that the impact of one knowledge stock may depend not just on its level but also on the level of other stocks; furthermore, the interdependencies of firms' existing knowledge stocks might explain performance differences.The authors measure the effects of three pairwise combinations of knowledge stocks on firm innovative success, and find, using an event-history analysis of 843 dedicated biotechnology firms during 1973—99, that one pair is complementary (i.e. intellectual and collaborative capital) and two pairs are substitutive (i.e. human and intellectual and human and collaborative capital).Viewing knowledge complementarities through such a lens gives rise to systems effects and explains when the whole is bigger (or smaller) than the sum of its parts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it