MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325833494 · doi:10.1142/9789814299862_0022

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE IN A VOLUNTEER-BASED COMMUNITY

2009· preprint· en· W2325833494 on OpenAlexaff
John Huck, Rodney Al, Dinesh Rathi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditKnowledge managementBusinessVolunteerPublic relationsProcess (computing)Personal knowledge managementPolitical scienceAccountingComputer scienceOrganizational learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThe study explores the current state of knowledge management (KM) in a volunteer-based community. A knowledge audit was conducted at a volunteer-based community workshop to identify knowledge needs, gaps, sources, sinks and pools. While the study identified several knowledge needs, the study found that the personal motivation of volunteers is tied to their personal knowledge needs. Addressing the personal knowledge needs of volunteers may help develop a strong pool of volunteers and help sustain the organization. A strong KM system would address current problems and facilitate the process of building the community of volunteers. The study recommendations include both technological and non-technological methods to address identified problems and to manage the knowledge in the volunteer-based community.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207