MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974185489 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2014.11.001

Practical approach to knowledge management implementation in historic buildings restoration

2014· article· en· W1974185489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katayoun Taghizadeh, Eskandar Mokhtari, M.H. Mahmoudi Sari

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess managementArchitectural engineeringKnowledge managementEngineering managementEnvironmental resource managementConstruction engineeringOperations managementEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this investigation is to establish an applicable model for knowledge management implementation that works suitably in organizations involved in projects defined for a historic building such as restoration. Based on a peer review on general approaches in literature, some main improvement potentials are recognized to enable the model to meet with the especial objectives, which shall be considered in such projects. Content analysis was applied to ascertain the new presented model capabilities and improvement in each of three main core components of knowledge management implementation model including peoples, processes, and technologies. We came up with a new conceptual model named as Finger Frame Model with four individual tiers connected with an intelligent communication medium . It is concluded that three main components of KM block diagrams consist of knowledge identification, acquisition, and prevention are appropriately covered in basic tier. The other three components of inner cycle of KM basic diagram consist of using, development, and distribution are also covered in an interface between operators and basic tiers, which together with make lower frame of new presented model. The model is in a continuous improving stage considering self-monitoring processes in an individual tier with the same name, which is located in the upper frame. An upper layer named as goal tier is also located in top frame in which, the main quantitative goals of KM implementation in the project organization are considered. The conceptual diagrams as well as internal processes of each main tier are also presented and discussed. Based on the overall explanations, some main benefits and risks are highlighted for new presented model and outlooks are debated. The model is applied in a real case study and the results are compared with the previous knowledge management implementation model. The results show that the model works efficiently in projects organization related to the historic building restoration.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207