Knowledge management, research data management, and university scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to synthesize existing research on research data management (RDM), academic scholarship and knowledge management and provide a conceptual framework for an institutional research data management support-system (RDMSS) for systems development, managerial and academic use. Design/methodology/approach – Viewing RDMSS from multiple theoretical perspectives, including data management, knowledge management, academic scholarship and the practice-based perspectives of knowledge and knowing, this paper conceptually explores the systems’ elements needed in the development of an institutional RDM service by considering the underlying data discovery and application issues, as well as the nature of academic scholarship and knowledge creation, discovery, application and sharing motivations in a university environment. Findings – The paper provides general criteria for an institutional RDMSS framework. It suggests that RDM in universities is at the very heart of the knowledge life cycle and is a central ingredient to the academic scholarships of discovery, integration, teaching, engagement and application. Research limitations/implications – This is a conceptual exploration and as a result, the research findings may lack generalisability. Researchers are therefore encouraged to further empirically examine the proposed propositions. Originality/value – The broad RDMSS framework presented in this paper can be compared with the actual situation at universities and eventually guide recommendations for adaptations and (re)design of the institutional RDM infrastructure and knowledge discovery services environment. Moreover, this paper will help to address some of the identified underlying scholarship and RDM disciplinary divides and confusion constraining the effective functioning of the modern day university’s RDM and data discovery environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.142 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".