MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge Management Systems -- Why So Many Failures?

2006· article· en· W2018543194 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth A. Grant, Umair Qureshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacit knowledgeVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementFocus (optics)Knowledge engineeringExplicit knowledgeRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many recent IT project failures relate to the implementation of a wide variety of knowledge-focused systems. High levels of failure are reported and reasons cited in the literature tend to associate these failures with poor project definition and an over focus on the technology. However, there may be another reason for these failures - a misuse of the concept of tacit/explicit knowledge in the form of an assumption that one can easily be converted into the other. A closer examination of tacit knowledge - particularly through the seminal works of Polanyi and Nonaka - would suggest otherwise

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.020
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
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 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
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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCompetitive and Knowledge IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207