Effect of knowledge management on service innovation in academic libraries
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
Effective management of all knowledge in an organization is a key criterion for innovation. Academic libraries are beginning to realize the importance of knowledge management in this regard. However, there are no quantitative studies studying knowledge management and service innovation in the context of libraries. Islam, Agarwal and Ikeda arrived at a framework for knowledge management for service innovation in academic libraries (KMSIL). Through a survey of 107 librarians from 39 countries, this study investigates the effect of knowledge management (and knowledge management cycle phases) on service innovation. The study found that knowledge capture/creation and knowledge application/use both significantly impact service innovation in academic libraries. The effect of knowledge/sharing and transfer on innovation was found to be insignificant. The study also demonstrated the relationship between the knowledge management phases. The findings support the KMSIL framework. They should help academic libraries in the process of service innovation by utilizing phases of the knowledge management cycle.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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