MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154374169 · doi:10.1177/014920630102700610

The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage

2001· article· en· W2154374169 on OpenAlexaff
Rajendra K. Srivastava, Liam Fahey, H. Kurt Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitive advantageShareholder valueMarketingBusinessResource-based viewContext (archaeology)Resource (disambiguation)Value propositionCore (optical fiber)Value (mathematics)Industrial organizationSet (abstract data type)Process managementComputer scienceShareholderCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article posits a framework that shows how market-based assets and capabilities are leveraged via market-facing or core business processes to deliver superior customer value and competitive advantages. These value elements and competitive advantages can be leveraged to result in superior corporate performance and shareholder value and reinvested to nurture market-based assets and capabilities in the future. The article also illustrates how resource-based view (RBV) and marketing considerations in the context of generating and sustaining customer value can refine and extend each other’s traditional frames of analysis. Finally, the article posits a set of research directions designed to enable scholars to further advance the integration of RBV and marketing from both theory-driven practice management as well as a problem-driven theory development perspectives.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.025
Scholarly communication0.0150.017
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1,025
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ManagementSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207