Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management in the Interaction of Government and Management of Information Technologies from COBIT 5 Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a reflection on Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management out of a COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology), 5 framework proposal stating the importance to achieve strategic objectives and to obtain an ideal quality level, through efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness in the whole area of processes and procedures oriented to Organizational Development; thus, the objective is to present these concepts through a documentary investigation analyzed in data bases, Google Scholar, on-line catalogs and repositories. The COBIT 5 framework proposal is described in its Principle 4 "Enabling a holistic approach". In the explanation, each enabler and its interaction with the Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management is detailed, in which the viability to achieve the institutional objectives and goals is observed, ensuring and closing the gap between Information Technology Management and business objectives. From the analysis, it is concluded that the participation of these two concepts in all the processes is very active and important, so its explicit definition is proposed in the Governance models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".