Personal and organizational knowledge transfer: Implications for worklife engagement
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
Although knowledge transfer (KT) in healthcare organizations is increasingly important, models have typically focused on the transfer of clinical knowledge. Despite numerous reports and studies on worklife issues for healthcare professionals, few recommendations have been implemented, and many of these professionals are unfamiliar with the reports. Using measures of knowledge transfer of quality of worklife information developed from a model of transfer of clinical knowledge, we tested the relationship between individual and organizational knowledge transfer among 769 nurses in hospitals across four provinces in Canada. We also examined a model that integrated these two knowledge transfer measures with burnout/engagement in the workplace. Our data supported a two factor structure for the measure of knowledge transfer involving a) individual perceptions of personal knowledge transfer activities and b) organizations' support for knowledge transfer. Data from structural equation modeling demonstrated the importance of knowledge transfer pertaining to quality of worklife to nurses' experience of energy, involvement, and efficacy that underlies the burnout/engagement construct.
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 | 0.000 | 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