Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internal markets can improve knowledge sharing, information exchange, forecasting, innovation, and productivity within the firm. Despite their widespread popularity, however, the strategies to implement and manage markets inside organizational boundaries are not well understood. This article provides a design framework for developing knowledge markets inside firms; it provides a stage model or ‘life cycle’ of internal market development, and explores critical issues at each stage. Our framework proceeds from an analysis of more than three dozen firm implementations, and builds on three economic theories: price theory, monetary theory, and two-sided network theory. For each stage of implementation, the framework outlines the challenges faced by firms studied and identifies solutions to make knowledge markets work. The resulting blueprint adds rigor to the difficult tasks of measuring, valuing, and stimulating the production of information.
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 | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.102 |
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".