Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge management systems (KMS) are the tools and techniques that support knowledge‐management practices in organizations. The study of these systems consists of a small but growing body of literature. In the last two years alone, at least four books, two special editions of journals and a number of academic and practitioner articles have been published related to this area. However, much of the work that has been published has been in the form of isolated survey studies, or anecdotal case studies into particular aspects of KMSs. This has made it difficult to build a cumulative body of knowledge into the development, use and management of these systems. The purpose of this paper is to ‘survey the current landscape’ of KMSs, and provide a framework for research into the development and use of these systems in organizations. The intent is to highlight areas where ‘gaps’ exist in what we know about KMSs and suggest ways to close those gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".