Practical Relevance of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Scholarly Research: Books as Knowledge Translation Agents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enhance our understanding of the relevance of knowledge management/intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic research, this study explores what sources authors utilize to develop their book content. Ten prominent KM/IC book authors were interviewed to identify if and how KM/IC academic literature is being disseminated through books. It was found that the body of knowledge existing in peer-reviewed journals is utilized in the development of book/textbook content. Books serve as knowledge translation agents through which academic literature is summarized, aggregated and transformed into the format that may be easily comprehended by non-academics. In addition to peer-reviewed journals, KM/IC book authors utilize other sources, including personal research, expertsâ opinions, experience, practitioner magazines, conferences, books, and informal discussions with academics. The model, which was developed within this study, demonstrates that the bookâs target audience and authorâs motivation serve as a pure moderator of the relationship between the available content sources and actual book content.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".