MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599444024 · doi:10.1002/bse.1958

Doing More with Less: Building Dynamic Capabilities for Eco‐Efficiency

2017· article· en· W2599444024 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean D. Kabongo, Olivier Boiral

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Strategy and the Environment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationDynamic capabilitiesOrganizational ecologyIndustrial ecologyExtant taxonVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Knowledge managementConsolidation (business)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessProcess managementEcologyIndustrial organizationEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceSustainabilityEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article sheds light on the manner in which managers perceive, develop and integrate dynamic capabilities for eco‐efficient activities inherent to industrial ecology. The research employs a case study of 12 Canadian facilities involved in the processing of a wide variety of waste materials. Findings from the experiences of 60 managers interviewed reveal that capabilities for industrial ecology largely depend upon the integration and coordination of competencies, innovations and new routines related to several functional areas: innovation and technological development; control of residual material flows; adjustments in human resources; management of environmental constraints; and networking and marketing. These dynamic capabilities are developed and integrated through a four‐stage process: local experimentation, internal operationalization, enlargement/cross‐functional integration and strategic consolidation. The paper contributes to the extant literature related to dynamic capabilities and the natural resource‐based view by offering an understanding of those factors necessary for the success of industrial ecology, and also by demonstrating the functional and dynamic nature of such factors. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations118
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Strategy and the EnvironmentSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207