INDIVIDUAL AMBIDEXTERITY AND ANTECEDENTS IN A CHANGING CONTEXT
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
People and organisations should align their current goals and adapt to change to maintain and sustain their competitive advantages. That is the idea behind ambidexterity. Extant research has largely focused on ambidexterity at the organisational and unit levels, although individual ambidexterity is perhaps equally important to organisational success. To shed some light on the issue, this paper argues that two antecedents, handling work stress and trust building, influence individual ambidexterity and individual performance. Two hundred forty-five paired questionnaires were collected, and a construct of four items of ambidextrous behaviour was used to measure individual ambidexterity. The empirical findings indicate that an individual’s skills in handling work stress in performance management, building trust for social support and practicing individual ambidexterity, result in high performance. Individual ambidexterity mediates two of these positive relationships, between handling work stress and performance, and between trust building and performance. The research and practical implications are also discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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