MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244493504 · doi:10.28945/3264

Developing a Model of Next Generation Knowledge Management

2008· article· en· W4244493504 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInforming Science and IT Education Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisibilityScrutinyKnowledge managementComputer scienceFocus (optics)Personal knowledge managementTechnology managementData scienceOrganizational learningPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Management exploded into visibility as a management topic in the mid-1990s with a significant impact in the IT applications area. It has had high visibility for the last decade and, in recent years, has come under some critical scrutiny - - questioning the success of many of the attempts to manage knowledge, especially those with an IT focus, as well as some suggestion that it was merely the latest management fad, now facing inevitable decline. As a counter to this, some experts have proposed the emergence of a "next" generation that both resolves the limitations of the previous generation and offers additional understanding that could lead to more successful ventures. A view of the evolution of Knowledge and Knowledge Management through four stages is presented and a composite model for Next Generation Knowledge Management (NGKM) is proposed, derived from the theories presented by several prominent authors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it