Meta‐review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.461
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study is to conduct a meta‐review analysis of the knowledge management and intellectual capital literatures by investigating research productivity and conducting a citation analysis of individuals, institutions, and countries. The meta‐analysis focuses on the three leading peer‐reviewed, refereed journals in this area: Journal of Intellectual Capital , Journal of Knowledge Management , and Knowledge and Process Management . Results indicate that research productivity is exploding and that there are several leading authors and foundation publications that are referenced regularly. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Knowledge and Process Management
- Topic
- Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- McMaster University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- ProductivityIntellectual capitalCitationKnowledge managementCitation impactCitation analysisFoundation (evidence)BibliometricsPeer reviewComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes