MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522262001 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n10p176

Learning Organization Impact on Internal Intellectual Capital Risks: An Empirical Study in the Jordanian Pharmaceutical Industry Companies

2016· article· en· W2522262001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Azeez Badir Alnidawi, Fatimah Musa Omran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalRelational capitalStructural capitalBusinessLearning organizationIndividual capitalSocial capitalCreativityEconomic capitalHuman capitalCapital (architecture)Organizational learningKnowledge managementEconomicsFinancePsychologySociologyEconomic growthComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The intellectual capital with its different dimensions (Social Capital, Structural Capital, Human Capital, Creative Capital and Relational Capital) is a part of the strategic assets, which helps organizations to survive in the changing globalization environment. The intellectual capital is exposed to many risks at the level of internal environment, which require to be studied and to know their origins and diagnose their causes in order to dealing with its. The continuous learning, supporting leadership, organizing social activities that support self-learning and collective learning that contribute to the enhancement of knowledge leading to generate creativity as a part of the most important handling factors of the intellectual capital risks. This study aims to clarify the contribution mechanism of learning organization to dealing with internal intellectual capital risks. As well as, making recommendations to the decision-makers in this sector, which would contribute to the development of their organizations and help to convert them into learning organizations, and contribute to achieve their objectives efficiently and effectively. Four companies were chosen from (24) companies as a sample for this study. This study found a set of results focusing on that the learning organization can work on dealing with of intellectual capital risks with its different kinds through practicing the philosophy of learning organization. The study also found a set of recommendations that serve the purpose of the study.</p>

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207