Searching for Knowledge in the Pmbok® Guide
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
A promising new topic for researchers who focus on project management is the application of knowledge management concepts as a way to improve project success. In this paper, knowledge management theory is used as a lens to examine the Project Management Institute's A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), because this book is globally influential among project managers. Several different theoretical frameworks are used. Results show that the PMBOK® Guide has a strong bias toward explicit and declarative (i.e., “how”) knowledge, and pays less attention to tacit and causal (i.e., “why”) knowledge. Our recommendations outline how the existing structure of the PMBOK® Guide can be preserved while the content is enhanced using knowledge management concepts that have been shown to be influential in enhancing project success. This is an enhanced and expanded version of a paper presented at the PMI Research Conference 2004 in London, England.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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