MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023535866 · doi:10.1109/infrkm.2010.5466890

Knowledge management: A bibliometric analysis of open access journals

2010· article· en· W2023535866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Szarina Abdullah, Hazila Timan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsComputer scienceLibrary scienceKnowledge managementData scienceRegional scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper uses Bibliometrics approach to examine the growth and characteristics of academic papers published in 3 open access journals with titles on Knowledge Management during 2003-2008. Findings indicate that 3 main areas contribute to KM literature, i.e. KM Theory and Practice, Business Process and Management, and ICT. 350 Authors of the 184 papers are from 46 different countries, of which the majority are in Europe, US, Australia, and Canada.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.1590.356
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207