MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341894183 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n6p143

The Effect of Structural Capital on Enterprise (Qualitative and Quantitative) Performance

2016· article· en· W2341894183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osman Yılmaz, Pinar Comez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLISRELStructural equation modelingStructural capitalHuman capitalCapital (architecture)Classical economicsBusinessIntellectual capitalQualitative analysisIndustrial organizationEconomicsQualitative researchEconometricsMicroeconomicsEconomic capitalIndividual capitalSociologyMathematicsMarket economyFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual capital is a new managerial notion that is adaptive to changing environmental conditions and provides advantages in highly competitive marketplace. It is contextualized in the literature with the sub-elements: structural capital, human capital and relation capital. Even though this notion found wide interest in academia, the impacts of its sub-elements on business performance haven’t been studied enough. In this study we aim to fill this gap. For this reason, the relationships between structural capital and qualitative and quantitative performance have been investigated. For analysis we preferred Structural Equation Model (SEM) using Lisrel 8.51. According to the findings, structural capital affects the qualitative performance positively and explains 82% of the change in qualitative performances of companies; while explaining 28 % of the positive change.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207