MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415062433 · doi:10.1002/cjas.70027

Impact of Degree Centrality, Structural Holes, and Network Density of External Corporate Network Ties on Ambidextrous Innovation

2025· article· en· W4415062433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhuohang Li, Yingjun Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityLeverage (statistics)Social network (sociolinguistics)Structural holesDual (grammatical number)Quality (philosophy)AmbidexteritySocial capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In the complex and ever‐changing environment of the information age, companies face dual challenges of limited resources and the need for continuous innovation. However, the question of how to effectively leverage external resources to balance ambidextrous innovation remains underexplored in the existing literature. This paper addresses this gap by examining the role of social network characteristics, specifically degree centrality, structural holes (SH), and network density, in facilitating ambidextrous innovation. It further investigates how internal control (IC) quality and CEO duality moderate these relationships. The findings indicate that: (1) degree centrality and SH have a positive effect on ambidextrous innovation, whereas network density exerts a negative effect; (2) CEO duality weakens the relationship between corporate social networks (CSNs) and exploratory innovation (EI); (3) IC positively moderates the relationship between degree centrality and ambidextrous innovation, between SH and exploitative innovation (DI), and also strengthens the negative relationship between network density and EI. By comprehensively evaluating the influence of various CSN characteristics on ambidextrous innovation, this study broadens the scope of social network research. These findings help companies optimize their social network structure, enhance their IC systems, and refine their corporate governance, which enables them to benefit from knowledge sharing and enhance their ambidextrous innovation capabilities.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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 venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207