From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
The abstract conceptualizes generative AI models as wicked organizational resources whose attribution ambiguity and emergent unpredictability complicate stakeholder claims, property-rights arrangements, and value appropriation.
Scope: abstract-level conceptual study
The Crossref abstract frames generative AI models as dynamically governed organizational resources and introduces wicked resources as a category marked by attribution ambiguity and emergent unpredictability in firm control.
Scope: publisher-deposited abstract-level metadata
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (6)
- Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
- Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
- The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
- Dynamic capabilities and strategic management
- Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm
- Measurement Cost and the Organization of Markets
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; no full text inspected
- SAGE public DOI-page probes returned HTTP 403 during the lane, so claims rely on retained Crossref publisher-deposited metadata
- Abstract-level Crossref metadata only; the publisher OnlineFirst listing returned an access challenge and was not used.
Source independence
publisher-only