MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912487750 · doi:10.1590/s0034-759020170306

MNEMONIC CAPABILITIES: COLLECTIVE MEMORY AS A DYNAMIC CAPABILITY

2017· article· en· W2912487750 on OpenAlexaff
Diego M. Coraiola, Roy Suddaby, William Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Administração de Empresas · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicTemporalityCollective memoryDynamic capabilitiesAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceTemporalitiesCompetitive advantageArgument (complex analysis)SociologyEpistemologyKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Dynamic capabilities (DCs) are the processes that organizations develop to remain competitive over time. However, in spite of the importance of temporality in the development of DCs, the roles of time, history, and memory remain largely implicit. In fact, most studies focus on the past as a source of constraints and limits for managerial action. Alternatively, we advocate for a social constructionist view of the past. Our core argument is that the capacity to manage the past is a critical competence of modern organizations. We argue that organizations can manage their collective memory as resources that aid the objective reproduction and exploitation of existing routines, the interpretive reconstruction and recombination of past capabilities for adaptation to environmental change, and the imaginative extension and exploration of collective memory for anticipated scenarios and outcomes. This renewed view of time, history, and memory is better suited for a dynamic theory of competitive advantage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Administração de EmpresasSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207