MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322503881 · doi:10.1111/emre.12563

Effects of human capital and learning rate: When organizations meet with information distortion and environmental dynamism

2023· article· en· W4322503881 on OpenAlexaff
Jiamin Dong, Min Tian, Xiaomei Li, Mary Crossan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Management Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDynamismOrganizational learningMisrepresentationDistortion (music)ForgettingHuman capitalOrganizational performanceKnowledge managementBusinessEconomicsPsychologyMarketingCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study systematically evaluates the effects of human capital and learning rate under typical organizational contexts with information distortion (i.e., no distortion, individual forgetting, and information misrepresentation) and environmental conditions (i.e., personnel turnover and environmental turbulence). The multi‐agent simulation model reveals that keeping an appropriate learning rate is an efficient way to balance exploration and exploitation. Slow learning outperforms only under the contexts of both no distortion and rare personnel turnover, whereas intermediate and high learning rates are more valuable in other organizational contexts. Moreover, we find that human capital generally has a positive effect on learning performance, with an exception that when an organization faces environmental turbulence, human capital has an inverted U‐shaped relation with learning performance. This study draws implications for managing organizational learning and guiding organizations with different human capital on how to influence learning under various organizational contexts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Management ReviewSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207