Intellectual capital stocks and flows: examining the mediating roles of social capital and knowledge transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to develop and empirically test a “stocks and flows”-based model of intellectual capital (IC) that examines how human-embodied knowledge (i.e., human capital) can be transformed into organisational non-embodied knowledge (i.e., organisational capital) through the mediating roles of social capital and the knowledge management (KM) process of knowledge transfer. Design/methodology/approach A structural model was developed and empirically tested using a survey data set of 295 questionnaires collected from the “knowledge-intensive” pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Jordan. Findings Empirical results revealed that each of human capital, social capital and knowledge transfer has a positive and significant effect on organizational capital. In particular, knowledge transfer emerged as having the strongest effect. Social capital, on the other hand, emerged as having a positive and significant effect on knowledge transfer. Mediation analysis revealed that while human capital significantly affects organizational capital, such an effect is partially and significantly mediated by each of social capital as well as knowledge transfer. Practical implications This study provides senior managers in pharmaceutical manufacturing firms with valuable insights pertaining to the development of their IC, in terms of how to exploit their knowledge stocks (i.e. human-embodied knowledge and organizational non-embodied knowledge) through managing knowledge flows between them. This was shown to be significantly leveraged by the mediating roles of social capital as well as knowledge transfer. Originality/value This study provides important theoretical and empirical contributions to the extant literature in a number of ways. It provides better understanding of the intricate linkages among IC dimensions, and how these play complementary roles in organizational capital development. It has also provided important empirical evidence highlighting the vital mediating roles of social capital and knowledge transfer in facilitating knowledge flows, which aid in transforming human-embodied knowledge stocks into organizational-embodied ones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".