MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070768222 · doi:10.5539/ass.v5n8p166

A Discussion on the Relationship and Mutual Effects of Knowledge Management and Information Management

2009· article· en· W2070768222 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Architecture and Usability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementInformation managementPersonal knowledge managementPromotion (chess)BusinessData managementKnowledge economyComputer scienceOrganizational learningPolitical scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper begins with the consanguineous relationship between data, information and knowledge, and then talks about knowledge management and information management. According to their definitions and features we think that there is a close relationship and mutual promotion between the two. Information management offers a solid foundation to knowledge management while the latter proposes more requirements for the former. However, the two are not the same thing; they do have differences. For one thing, knowledge management is not the advanced stage of information management, as it didn’t update from information management; for another, its sprouting is not for the defects of information management, but the necessity of knowledge-based economy development.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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