MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981933610 · doi:10.1108/01435120010342770

Working with knowledge: how information professionals help organisations manage what they know

2000· article· en· W1981933610 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Management · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementTacit knowledgePersonal knowledge managementKnowledge value chainExplicit knowledgeOrganizational learningProcedural knowledgeDescriptive knowledgeBusinessKnowledge engineeringBody of knowledgeOrder (exchange)Domain knowledgeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to manage knowledge, we need to understand the nature of knowledge in organisations. It is helpful to distinguish between three categories of organisational knowledge: tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, and cultural knowledge. Tacit knowledge is personal knowledge, explicit knowledge is codified knowledge, and cultural knowledge is based on shared beliefs. We use this framework to discuss the role of the information professional with respect to each category of knowledge. Knowledge management initiatives led by information professionals in three organisations are then examined. An analysis of these experiences suggests many opportunities for information professionals to make important contributions in managing an organisation’s knowledge for growth and innovation.

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 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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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