Developing a Framework of Double-Loop Knowledge Management Model on Customer Self-Service Systems
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
This study developed a framework of double-loop knowledge management (KM) model that constructed a successful foundation of a problem solving orientation in the main stream of public service domain. Aiming at the potential benefits on customer self-service systems, we proposed a set of research propositions that represents the essential relatedness between the necessary elements and its performance under the settings in Taiwan’s e-government. The four essential elements including organization, leadership, learning and technology were inferred to have positive effects on KM implementations that provide a suitable route for enhancing problem solving performances in customer self-service systems. Facing a disproportionate condition of knowledge within interpersonal networks, the framework provides a powerful filter to sieve out the beneficial knowledge that is produced, shared, or integrated by one's own side, and could decrease the cognitive gaps among the interaction of customers or members (citizens, businesses, employees and other agencies for government administration) towards a holistic approach of KM practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it