Organizational forgetting: Reviewing 40 years of research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review of the literature on organizational forgetting that has appeared in the past 40 years to assess unlearning, knowledge loss, and depreciation mechanisms. This review involved examining 64 key papers in organizational forgetting and related contributions to the broader literature of organizational learning. The analysis identified four critical themes that have shaped the current debate: (1) managerial involvement: influence and cognition; (2) feedback processes; (3) social interactions: structure, sociality, and inquiry culture; and (4) knowledge comprehension and memory. Taken as a whole, these themes allowed us to provide an organizing framework that can help integrate a wide array of quantitative and qualitative work on forgetting. Further, we identified four major areas that require further research: power relations; the interaction between structure and discourse; descriptions of factors, methods, phases, and measures of organizational forgetting; and links to benefits, hindrances, strategies, and performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".