Resources and Capabilities from Their Very Outset: a Bibliometric Comparison Between Scopus and the Web of Science
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
The bibliometric method has proven to be a powerful tool for the analysis of scientific publications, in such a way that allows rating the quality of the knowledge generating process, as well as its impact on firm´s environment. This article presents a comparison between two powerful bibliographic databases in terms of their coverage and the usefulness of their content. The comparison starts with a subject associated to the relationship between resources and capabilities. The outcomes show that the search results differ between both databases. The Web Of Science (WOS), has a greater coverage than SCOPUS has. It also has a greater impact in terms of most cited authors and publications. The search results in the WOS yield articles from 2001, while Scopus yields articles from 1976, however, some of the latter are inconsistent with the topic being searched. The analysis points to a lack of studies regarding resources as foundations of firm´s capabilities; as a result, new research on this field is suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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