MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904150646 · doi:10.7202/1053692ar

HRM Practices and Intellectual Capital Architecture: Fostering Ambidexterity in MNCs

2018· article· en· W2904150646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. Lakshman, Olivier Dupouët, Tatiana Bouzdine‐Chameeva

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbidexterityIntellectual capitalMultinational corporationKnowledge managementBusinessHuman capitalSocial capitalPerspective (graphical)Organizational capitalCapital (architecture)ArchitectureHuman resourcesResource (disambiguation)Industrial organizationManagementSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational ambidexterity has been well researched. Yet, the human resource perspective on this is non-existent. We contribute by providing an empirical understanding of HRM practices at a large MNC encompassing both structural and contextual ambidexterity. Our revelatory case design provides an in-depth investigation of a French MNC. Findings suggest that an intellectual capital configuration, with relatively high levels of human, social, and organizational capital respectively is essential for fostering ambidexterity. Additionally, both a human-capital enhancing HR system and an administrative HR system aids ambidexterity. We discuss the intellectual capital architecture, HR practices, theoretical contributions, limitations, and directions for further research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207