MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973076770 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v4n5p24

Knowledge Management through Organizational Culture Change

2013· article· en· W1973076770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oleg Tilchin, Mohammad Essawi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)ConstructiveProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Computer scienceKnowledge managementOrganizational cultureProcess managementOrganizational changeBusinessManagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dynamic model serving as a tool for implementation of experiences of organizational culture change is suggested. It is aimed at providing effective knowledge management (KM) of employees. Dynamics of the model are expressed by a change of its parameters. It is adjusted to the dynamic process of implementing experiences. Building the model includes elaboration and integration of interconnected components. The “Result” is a central component of the model. This component determines a desired organizational goal and possible directions of its attainment. The “Confront” component engenders constructive confrontation in an organization. For this reason, the employees are prompted toward KM culture change with the purpose of attaining the desired result. The “Assess” component realizes complex assessments of employee proposals by management and peers in order to obtain the desired result. The “Reward” component sets the order of assigning rewards to employees based on the assessments of their proposals directed towards attaining the desired result in an organization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207