Implementation of knowledge management and utilizing tools in healthcare for making evidence-based decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare firms have understood that the valuation of “intangible resources” is a crucial driver of their profitability due to the complexity of the business environment and the intensity of competition. “Intellectual capital” is a source of “creativity and invention”, as well as one of the most important components in a company development, as it is the spark for success and growth. Technology has rapidly grown in importance around the world. As a result, the function of knowledge as a primary unit of wealth has been reliant on individuals' “creative ability, experience, and skills” to develop new information. The technological underpinning for KMS implementation is provided by information technology (IT). Since it is employed at all phases of the KM life span, it also offers a way of implementing a robust theoretical framework for KM. IT is critical during the steps of the “socialization externalization combination internalization (SECI)” paradigm. This research study mainly discusses the implementation of knowledge management and its impact on decision making in healthcare organisations. In this context, secondary method of data collection has been considered to gather relevant and factual data from different sources. Thus, keywords are used to find out topic-based information from journals, articles.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".