MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997808463 · doi:10.1108/13673270210450432

A knowledge management reference model

2002· article· en· W1997808463 on OpenAlexaff
El‐Sayed Abou‐Zeid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementComputer scienceConstruct (python library)StructuringBlueprintConceptual modelReference modelProcess managementManagement scienceBusinessSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three‐layer, cognitive domains, functional and resources, reference model for knowledge management systems is developed. This model aims at providing the basis for identifying the processes to be supported by any knowledge management support system (KMSS), for modeling the dynamics of these processes, for developing a framework of a business‐aware approach to KMSS development methodology, and for developing blueprints for information/communication technology (ICT)‐based KMSS. The first layer deals with the organizational knowledge and its characterization in terms of knowledge things. The concept of “K‐manipulating situation” is introduced and used as a conceptual construct for structuring the functional aspects of KMSS. While this construct combines knowledge and its manipulating processes, it also captures the social aspects of them by including the involved actors and their roles. Examples from Matsushita’s “Home Bakery” case study are used to illustrate the application of the reference model.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations80
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Knowledge ManagementSame topicCompetitive and Knowledge IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207