MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024777897 · doi:10.1108/14691930210448314

Organizational memory and intellectual capital

2002· article· en· W2024777897 on OpenAlexaff
Mark N. Wexler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalOrganizational memoryMnemonicRelational capitalPerspective (graphical)NarrativeIndividual capitalKnowledge managementHuman capitalComputer scienceOrganizational learningEconomicsFinancial capitalPsychologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational memory (OM) is a branch of collective memory studies tied to instrumental action which seeks to enhance the organization’s intellectual capital by aiding organizations in using both routine practices and imbedded information to anticipate and solve problems. Within an intellectual capital perspective, OM involves the encoding of information via suitable representation and retrieval systems which are filtered through the three forms of intellectual capital – human, structural and relational. This paper explores how these three forms of intellectual capital, when put into mnemonic practice, generate four interrelated but distinct models of OM – the storage bin model, the narrative model, the innovative model, and the political resource model. Emphasis is placed on discussion of how each of these models of OM impacts efforts to effectively manage an organization’s intellectual capital.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations84
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual CapitalSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207