MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520476817 · doi:10.1108/jic-04-2016-0041

Linking peripheral vision with relational capital through knowledge structures

2016· article· en· W2520476817 on OpenAlexaff
Juan‐Gabriel Cegarra‐Navarro, Anthony Wensley, Alexeis García-Pérez, Antonio Sotos-Villarejo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsorptive capacityRelational capitalIntellectual capitalOriginalityKnowledge managementBusinessValue (mathematics)Industrial organizationMarketingComputer scienceSociologyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Peripheral vision (PV) or side vision refers to that which is visible to the eye while being outside of its central area of focus. PV enables organisms to detect movement and potential threats in their environment. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the concept of PV in the business environment, as well as its relationship with knowledge structures in the form of technology knowledge and absorptive capacity. The relative importance and significance of technology knowledge and absorptive capacity as mediators between “relational capital” (RC) and “PV” are also examined. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports an empirical investigation involving 125 employees from the banking sector. Data collected was statistically analysed using PLS-graph software version 03.00. Results of the data analysis show relationships uncovered in the existing literature. Findings The creation of RC by employees from the banking sector relies to a large extent on managers’ ability to perceive, analyse and understand activity that is often outside the focus of their attention. Practical implications Managers who explicitly value their RC have a wider vision of their environment. In turn, a wider understanding of the activity in the environment drives the strengthening of the organisation and its RC. Originality/value PV can have a direct impact on the organisation’s appetite for the development of its technology knowledge base, thus contributing to enhance the firm’s absorptive capacity as well as the extent, quality and value of its RC.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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