The Effect of Implementing Knowledge Management System in Supplier Selection Content to Improve Learning Performance of Online Travel Agencies Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">Supplier selection knowledge of OTAs businesses is one of the most valuable and significant knowledge since OTAs now operate businesses that gain their benefits from having many kinds of tourism products and services for customers to browse from in their own online booking systems. The better the suppliers, the more successful will OTAs be. The knowledge in supplier selection is, therefore, relayed through manuals, mentoring and coaching. After that there has been a creation of knowledge management systems to be used as a media to pass on the knowledge via online means. The knowledge contents presented are retention and transfer knowledge. To evaluate the efficiency of using Knowledge Management System (KMS), the research has provided a study in increased learning performances of related staff in supplier selection who have learned through the KMS system. The result found that the group that learned through KMS gained higher learning performances than the one who learned from documents. This reflects that the KMS system will suitable to be used as a tool in knowledge management and can be relayed to organizations in this present time.</p>
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".