MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166603070 · doi:10.1177/0149206311432640

Knowledge, Networks, and Knowledge Networks: A Review and Research Agenda

2011· review· en· W2166603070 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonEmpirical researchKnowledge managementBody of knowledgeSocial network analysisSociologyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Data scienceManagement scienceSocial scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceSocial capitalEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large and growing body of empirical research shows that social relationships and the networks these relationships constitute are influential in explaining the processes of knowledge creation, diffusion, absorption and use. We refer to such networks as 'knowledge networks.' We advance an understanding of knowledge networks at multiple levels by conducting a systematic review and analysis of empirical research published on this topic in leading management, psychology, sociology and economics journals. We develop a comprehensive framework that organizes the knowledge networks literature, which we use to review extant empirical research within and across multiple disciplines and levels of analysis. We identify points of coherence and conflict in theoretical arguments and empirical results within and across levels and identify emerging themes and promising areas for future research.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.302 · 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