Determinants of Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in the Jordanian Hospitality Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As well as to examine the differences in attitude of respondents in regard to their demographic characteristic, the purpose of this research is to identify the main barriers to Knowledge Sharing (KS) within the Jordanian hospitality industry; a quantitative approach has been adopted in order to achieve these research objectives, the data being collected via the questionnaire. The sample of this research consisted of 273 managers and employees within ten top hotels in Jordan and the researcher implemented the Statistical Analysis Package (SPSS) so as to analyse the data, the descriptive statistics, mathematical averages, and standard deviations being used to identify the main barriers of KS within the Jordanian hospitality industry. The T-test and One-way ANOVA test were additionally used to examine the hypotheses, the study showcasing that individual and organisational barriers were the main barriers to KS within the Jordanian hospitality industry; meanwhile, technology and knowledge nature were not considered as barriers to KS. The results additionally indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the responses of the sample members at the level of α≤0.05 on the barriers to sharing knowledge from the employees at hospitality industry attributed to the following variables: gender; job; age; years of experiences; qualifications.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".