Intellectual capital and supply chain resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The main objective of this study is to test whether firms with a higher level of intellectual capital (IC) perform better in terms of their supply chain resilience compared to those with lower levels of IC. Likewise, the study also examines the impact of IC (characterized by human capital, relational capital and structural capital) on supply chain resilience directly and through supply chain learning. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from the 159 processed-food sector firms using a close-ended questionnaire during the corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), partial least squares multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test a set of hypotheses emanating from a conceptual model of IC and supply chain resilience. Findings Empirical results revealed a significant influence of all dimension of IC on a firm's supply chain learning and supply chain resilience. Likewise, findings also exhibit a momentous role of supply chain learning in reinforcing the impact of IC on supply chain resilience. Cross-firm size comparison reveals that supply chain resilience of firms with a higher level of IC performed significantly better than those with lower levels of IC. Firms with a higher level of structural capital had a highly resilient supply chain. Practical implications Findings of the study imply that IC and supply chain learning should be considered as a strategic tool and should be strategically developed for uplifting a supply chain performance of a firm. The development of IC and supply chain learning (SCL) not only improves the supply chain resilience of a firm but also can help to integrate the internal and external knowledge for harnessing supply chain resilience. Originality/value This research study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic which provides a unique setting to examine resiliency and learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".