The Impact of Knowledge Documentation Process as an Intermediary Variable among Knowledge Acquisition Process, Organizational Culture and Human Capital
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
The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact knowledge acquisition process, knowledge documentation process, on human capital, and impact organizational culture on documentation process, Accordingly, a questionnaire-based survey was designed to test the aforementioned model based on dataset of 302 employees’ from the National Agriculture Research Center (NARC) in Jordan, questionnaires which include 29 items were used to gather information from the respondents. Multiple regression and simple regression analyses were conducted to test the research hypotheses. This study identified knowledge acquisition and knowledge documentation are the most important factors affecting the accumulation of human capital. The results indicated that knowledge acquisition process and knowledge documentation process positively and significantly affect human capital. However, organizational culture did not prove to be positively related to knowledge documentation process. Moreover, knowledge documentation process positively and significantly mediated the relationship between knowledge acquisition process and human capital. The results have enormous implication for the government sector in Jordan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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