Intangible resources and firms' innovation performance: empirical evidence from Chinese firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Intangible resources (IRs) play an important role in enterprise innovation; previous studies find inconsistent results (positive and negative). The authors develop and test a framework to analyze IRs to see whether and how to impact firm innovation performance to reconcile the conflicting results. Design/methodology/approach This study empirically examined the curvilinear effect of IRs and innovation performance (IP) based on data from the Annual Census of Chinese Industrial Enterprises. The moderating effect of institutional development (ID) and state ownership (SO) in the relationship between firms' IRs and IP was also examined. Findings It was found that there is a U -shaped relationship between IRs and IP. Moreover, the institutional development weakens the U -shaped relationship. Originality/value The U -shaped relationship explains the inconsistent results in previous studies. It offers some important implications for managers and policymakers, who must understand the role of IRs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it