Knowledge-centered culture and knowledge sharing: the moderator role of trust propensity
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
Purpose – This research aims to evaluate if knowledge-centered culture (KCC) fosters knowledge sharing equally across employees with different levels of trust propensity, an enduring individual characteristic. Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted with 128 US-based employees. Findings – The authors found that KCC only promoted knowledge sharing in individuals with high levels of trust propensity. For individuals with low levels of trust propensity, KCC had no effect on knowledge sharing. Research limitations/implications – The authors focused exclusively on trust propensity as a moderator. Future research could analyze the role of other enduring individual differences in the relationship between KCC and knowledge sharing. Practical implications – A KCC may be inefficient in promoting knowledge sharing in employees with low propensity to trust. Recruitment and selection of individuals with a high propensity to trust is a possible solution to enhance the association between KCC and knowledge sharing in organizations. Originality/value – By identifying an enduring individual characteristic that shapes the relationship between KCC and knowledge sharing, the authors move toward the development of a contingent view of KCC and show that KCC fosters knowledge sharing differently across employees.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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