Organizational forgetting Part II: a review of the literature and future research directions
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
Purpose The purpose of this two-part paper is to provide a summary of current research opportunities in organizational forgetting literature and a future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach The summary of current research opportunities and future research agenda is drawn from the systematic literature review and synthesis reported in Part I. Findings Two broad areas for future research are proposed: A first area that highlights a need to address integrative theoretical challenges that include issues of temporality, history, power dynamics, and organizational context. A second area that highlights a need to reconcile contradicting explanations – such as whether technological sophistication and codification practices versus social networks prevent knowledge depreciation and loss – through a multilevel perspective. Research limitations/implications Limitations relate to time span coverage and journal article accessibility. Originality/value This Part II paper provides a summary of current research opportunities and offers directions for future research on organizational forgetting.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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