The quasi-moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between rewards and knowledge shared and gained
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of organizational culture and rewards in stimulating the sharing and gaining of knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – Hierarchical regression using survey data. Findings – The analyses show that rewards and organizational culture of knowledge transfer influence the knowledge shared and knowledge gained. Moreover, culture and rewards interact to influence knowledge gained, but not knowledge shared which leads to the conclusion knowledge gaining can be induced by rewards, even in the absence of a supportive culture. Research limitations/implications – The findings are consistent with socio-technical theory (STT) and the discussion positions this perspective as useful for future knowledge management studies. This research confirms that knowledge sharing and gaining are uniquely different activities that respond differently to culture and rewards. Originality/value – This study combines the work of different fields by focusing on knowledge sharing and gaining in a single study. Through this process, a bridge between organizational learning theory and STT is revealed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it