Organizational forgetting Part I: a review of the literature and future research directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to systematically review and synthesize the literature on organizational forgetting. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review approach was used to synthesize current theoretical and empirical studies on organizational forgetting. Findings The review and synthesis of the literature revealed that the organizational forgetting literature is fragmented, with studies conducted across disparate fields and using different methodologies; two primary modes (i.e. accidental and purposeful) and three foci (i.e. knowledge depreciation, knowledge loss and unlearning) define current organizational forgetting literature; and the factors that influence organizational forgetting can be grouped into four clusters related to individuals, processes, tools and organizational context. Research limitations/implications This literature review has limitations related to time span coverage and journal article accessibility. Originality/value This paper offers an integrative view of organizational forgetting that proposes a holistic and multilevel research approach and systematic synthesis of organizational forgetting research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".