Analysis of Individual Factors in Improving Knowledge Sharing: Case Study of Accounting Education Students
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
Education is a long-term investment in human resources for the survival of human civilisation in the world. Advances in technology can be used as a supporting tool in the learning process. However, the technology used can be influenced by individual and organisational factors in its use. This study aims to determine individual, organisational and technological factors in the student knowledge sharing process. This study uses a quantitative approach with a descriptive survey design method. Respondents in this study were students of the Accounting Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret class 2018-2020, with 149 students. The indicators used in the measurement are individual factors (self-efficacy, willingness to share, and reciprocal rules), organisational factors (lecturer support and competitiveness), and technological factors (availability of technology and use of technology). The data analysis method uses the SEM model. The study results show that individual and technology factors affect the knowledge-sharing process, and the organisation does not affect the knowledge-sharing process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it