MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408171539 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2025.1.005

The use of big data and the internet of things leadership and organizational culture: The innovative capacity of the Amman Stock Exchange

2025· article· en· W4408171539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled Yousef Alshboul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational cultureBig dataBusinessStock exchangeKnowledge managementInternet of ThingsPublic relationsComputer scienceFinancePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between big data adoption and Internet of Things adoption and entrepreneurial behavior at Amman Stock Exchange The study focuses on how the ability to innovate mainly mediates this link. The study method uses a quantitative approach that includes conducting a professional survey, conducting a statistical analysis, and testing mediation Key results show that the use of big data improves the ability to innovate largely, and affects employees’ practical leadership capabilities The interaction between Internet adoption and leadership capabilities is influenced by product capabilities, which emphasizes the important role of innovation as a mediator in shaping employee behavior emphasizing Practical results of this study show that Amman Stock Exchange companies strategically use big data and IoT technologies to promote innovation. Shortcomings of the study include the specificity of digital work, the reliance on self-reported data, and the use of static analysis. Subsequent research should expand participants and use more comprehensive methods. Recommendation: Embrace technology with an emphasis on innovation, provide leadership training, and increase knowledge about technology, innovation and human behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207