Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning from the Employee Perspectives: A Study from Saudi Arabia Context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between Knowledge Management (KM) and Organizational Learning (OL) from the employee perspective.KM has emerged as one of the most important areas in management practices and established as a basic resource for firms and economies. KM is an area of research and practice that is still searching for a stable set of core concepts and practical applications. OL is considered to be one of the most important issues in modern managerial literature. Also, OL is one of the most important organizational factors that can direct the behavior and attitudes of the employees in the organizations. This study was conducted at Saudi banks in Al-Taif Governorate. It is practical, according to its purpose, and descriptive according to its data collection method. The present study investigates the evaluative attitudes of the employees towards KM and OL. It will also illustrate the relationship between KM and OL. Two groups of employees were examined. Of the 350 questionnaires that were distributed, 285 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 81%.The finding reveals that there are differences among the employees regarding their evaluative attitudes towards KM and OL. Also, this study reveals that there is a statistically significant relationship between KM and OL. Accordingly, the study provided a set of recommendations including the necessity to pay more attention to KM and OL. This will achieve its success currently and in the future, besides attaining a competitive advantage.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it