RETRACTED: Key-synergies between strategic resources and operational tool orchestration for organization development
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the synergy between strategic resources and operational tool orchestration for organization development. Design/methodology/approach The article has a progressive empirical multiple-level research design. With a cross-sectional analysis, this investigation confirms the organization development can be related to strategic resources and a complex interplay of factors. Along with this method, our study enables rich empirical conceptualization and helps with extending theory. Findings The results indicate that in operational tool orchestration, the higher the synergy in the factors of production, the greater the strategic development, competitive positioning and sustainability of the organization. In sum, according to these results, the synergy between operational tool orchestration and the factors of productivity could have a significant effect on organizational objectives achievement. Originality/value This research provides researchers with an empirical base stating that organization development can be related to strategic resources in an operational context. The article also provides a new contribution to the existing literature in management development by confirming the significance of vital resources and functional tool orchestration in organization optimization and will be referenced by other authors in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".