MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995030820 · doi:10.4018/jkm.2010103001

Factors Affecting KM Implementation in the Chinese Community

2010· article· en· W1995030820 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

VenueInternational Journal of Knowledge Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollectivismTypologyKnowledge managementHoarding (animal behavior)Knowledge sharingChinaProcess (computing)BusinessPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceIndividualismEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews past research on KM to identify key factors affecting Chinese KM implementation. It begins with a chronological overview of 76 KM related publications, followed by two separate discussions of socio-cultural and non-socio-cultural factors affecting KM implementation within the Chinese community. A preliminary typology of these factors is proposed. In addition to individual factors that have direct impact on how people behave in the process of KM implementation, specific factors that strongly influence Chinese KM implementation are: (1) relationship networks and collectivist thinking, (2) competitiveness and knowledge hoarding, (3) management involvement and support, and (4) organizational culture that encourages knowledge sharing and learning and that minimizes knowledge hoarding. Several directions for future research are also presented.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.368 · 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