MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621565102 · doi:10.1108/jkm-06-2016-0229

Non-profit organizations’ use of tools and technologies for knowledge management: a comparative study

2017· article· en· W2621565102 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisKnowledge managementQualitative propertyPopularityDescriptive statisticsData collectionQuantitative analysis (chemistry)BusinessQualitative researchComputer scienceMarketingSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to present findings from a study conducted with non-profit organizations (NPOs) in Canada and Australia, focusing on the use of tools and technologies for knowledge management (KM). NPOs of different sizes and operating in different sectors were studied in two large-scale national surveys. The paper is useful to both practitioners in NPOs for understanding tool use for KM activities and to scholars to further develop the KM-NPO domain. Design/methodology/approach Two nation-wide surveys were conducted with Canadian and Australian NPOs of different sizes (i.e. very small to large-sized organizations) and operating in different sectors (e.g. animal welfare, education and research, culture and arts). An analysis of responses explores the use of tools and technologies by NPOs. Respondents identified the tools and technologies they used from nine pre-determined themes (quantitative data) plus an additional category of “other tools” (qualitative data), which allowed for free text responses. The quantitative data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques and the qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Findings Quantitative data analysis provides key findings including the popularity of physical, print documents across all NPO sizes and sectors. Statistical tests revealed, for example, there is no significant difference for the same-sized organizations in Canadian and Australian NPOs in the use of tools and technologies for KM activities. However, there were differences in the use of tools and technologies across different sizes of NPOs. The qualitative analysis revealed a number of additional tools and technologies and also provided contextual details about the nature of tool use. The paper provides specific examples of the types of tools and technologies NPOs use. Originality/value The paper has both practical and academic contributions, including areas for future research. The findings on the use of KM tools and technologies by NPOs contribute to the growing body of literature in the KM domain in general and also build the literature base for the understudied KM-NPO domain. NPOs will also find the paper useful in better understanding tools and technological implementation for KM activities. The study is unique not only in the content focus on KM for NPOs but also for the comparative study of activities in two countries.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.252 · 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