MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intellectual Capital Measurement and Reporting Models

2014· book-chapter· en· W2480137335 on OpenAlex
Jamal A. Nazari

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

VenueAdvances in business strategy and competitive advantage book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalField (mathematics)Measure (data warehouse)Capital (architecture)Computer scienceData scienceAccountingKnowledge managementActuarial scienceBusinessData miningMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter extends the earlier study of Bontis (2001) by critically reviewing the existing methods to measure and report intellectual capital. Bontis's (2001) study contributed significantly to the intellectual capital measurement and reporting literature. However, despite the growth in the field of IC and development and introduction of several new approaches to measure and report intellectual capital, no recent study has synthesized the IC measurement and reporting models. The objective of this chapter is to fill this gap in the literature by providing a critical review of 28 IC measurement models. To achieve this objective, the author partially adopts Sveiby's (2007) suggested classification scheme for categorizing the existing measurement models. The classification will enable the reader to uncover the common attributes of each model and to contrast the dissimilarities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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