MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563016341 · doi:10.4018/ijeei.2016070103

The Role of Technology and Social Media in Tacit Knowledge Sharing

2016· article· en· W2563016341 on OpenAlexaff
Kimiz Dalkir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacit knowledgeKnowledge managementKnowledge sharingInformation and Communications TechnologyKey (lock)Experiential knowledgeSocial mediaComputer scienceExplicit knowledgeSelection (genetic algorithm)Face (sociological concept)SociologyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology-mediated knowledge sharing has become almost unavoidable given the globalization of work. Co-workers are not necessarily in close enough proximity to have face-to-face interactions despite the fact that these are the most effective means of sharing knowledge. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) differ in a number of key attributes. While traditional technologies are well suited for sharing explicit knowledge, that has been articulated and documented as text or other media, tacit knowledge is more challenging. Tacit knowledge is typically experiential knowledge that is very difficult to put into words or document in any way. This paper proposes an ICT selection method based primarily on media richness (extent to which multimedia content can be shared) and social presence (extent to which people feel they are connecting with other people and not technology). These characteristics can serve as a preliminary basis to select the most appropriate channel for sharing tacit knowledge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and InnovationSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207