Organizations as Producers of Operating Product Flows to Members of Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article appraises a new empirical perspective about organizations, which disputes the mainstream economic view expressed in standard economic and financial economic textbooks. The mainstream view claims that organizations exist to increase their owners/shareholders value (wealth), and organizations’ operating activities could be dissociated from financial and investing activities (separability assumption). To the intangible flow theory, (a) the major aim of organizations is to deliver flows of operating products to members of society. These operating product flows are vital for human survival and existence. Thus, (b) operating, investing, and financing decisions are not randomly associated. I have studied 21,108 firms listed in the stock exchanges of 10 countries (i.e., Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States) at the beginning of the 21st century (2000-2011). These are stock exchanges with many listed firms, ranging from 679 firms in Singapore to 4,440 firms in Japan. Organizations’ operating, investing, and financial decisions seem to be actually connected, as suggested by the intangible flow theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".