Integrated e-learning for knowledge management and its impact on innovation performance among Jordanian manufacturing sector companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-learning in knowledge management was examined in this study, specifically on how it assists organizations in improving knowledge transfer and e-learning management, to increase performance and employee knowledge management. In this study, e-learning and knowledge management systems and technology were jointly implemented, and its impact on organizational performance was examined. Organizational management was also explored. The present study investigated the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and innovation performance (IP). The mediating effect of knowledge Management was deeply explored. Randomly selected managers from 57 Jordanian manufacturing companies were the study samples, and there were 470 managers involved in this study, from strategic, tactical, and operational levels. Questionnaires were used to gather data, and the questionnaire items covered the constructs of knowledge management, organizational learning (OL), knowledge-oriented leadership (KOL) and IP. A research model was proposed and was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The findings were as follows: KOL positively affected KM; KOL positively affected IP; OL negatively affected IP; KOL positively affected KM; OL positively affected KM; KM positively affected IP and KM mediated the relationship between KOL, OL and IP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".