Absorption, combination and desorption: knowledge-oriented boundary spanning capacities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to theoretically develop and empirically explore knowledge absorption, combination and desorption within and between organizations. Design/methodology/approach On the basis of knowledge-based view and absorptive capacity, the authors have conducted a multiple-case study to develop a theoretically grounded and empirically supported model of intra- and inter-firm knowledge cycles. Findings Firms identify their knowledge gaps and stocks, both tacit and explicit, undertaking efforts to fill the latter and maximize the value of the former. The paper finds that knowledge exploration, integration and exploitation both within the firm and between firms relies on absorptive, combinative and desorptive capacities. Further, as such capacities are organizationally expensive to maintain, firms will often emphasize one capacity over the other and focus either internally or externally to meet organizational goals. Originality/value While there is extensive research into absorptive capacity and some into combinative capacity, there is little empirical investigation of desorptive capacity and none into the integration of the three concepts; this paper seeks to fill that gap. Moreover, the resulting novel integrative model allows managers and researchers to identify the various capacities in use and their applications within the firm and between firms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it