MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531883400 · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.026

Implementing Moodle for e-learning for a successful knowledge management strategy

2016· article· en· W2531883400 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Tessier, Kimiz Dalkir

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementKnowledge transferOrganizational learningComputer sciencePersonal knowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A knowledge management strategy was implemented in a call centre organization. Part of this strategy included an e-learning tool ‘Moodle’ to support employee training and knowledge management (KM) initiatives. The research looked at the ways in which the e-learning tool could be used to help successfully implement the knowledge management strategy – specifically, to improve knowledge transfer between employees, improve individual and organizational performance and have a better understanding of the critical success factors involved for the KM strategy. The study analyzed three different methods of knowledge transfer to determine which resulted in the highest frequency of use for the knowledge repository. The results showed that by using e-learning, the knowledge repository had a high frequency of use and this shows that e-learning was a successful method of knowledge transfer. To keep employees functioning at an optimal level, employers will need to ensure knowledge management, training, and performance management strategies are aligned, measurable and maximized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International JournalSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207