Big data analytics capability and social innovation: the mediating role of knowledge exploration and exploitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While many organizations have successfully leveraged big data analytics capabilities to improve their performance, our understanding is limited on whether and how big data analytics capabilities affect social innovation in organizations. Based on the organizational information processing theory and the organizational learning theory, this study aims to investigate how big data analytics capabilities support social innovation, and how knowledge ambidexterity mediates this relationship. A total of 354 high-tech companies in China, this study shows that big data analytics management, big data analytics technology, and big data analytics personnel capabilities all have positive effects on social innovation. In addition, both knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation play a mediating role in this process. Furthermore, a polynomial regression and response surface analysis shows that social innovation increases when knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation are highly consistent but declines when knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation are inconsistent. This study not only provides new perspectives for understanding how big data analytics capabilities contribute to social innovation, complementing the existing literature on big data analytics capabilities and social innovation, but also provides important practical guidance on how organizations can develop big data analytics capabilities to improve social innovation and solve social problems in the digital age.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".