Internal versus external knowledge sourcing of organizational rules: an exploratory study of CPGs in a healthcare organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we examine how organizational rules source knowledge. By knowledge sourcing of a rule, we mean the formation of reference ties from the rule to knowledge sources located outside of the focal rule. Rules can source knowledge from sources within the organization (e.g., other rules) and outside (e.g., research publications, policies, standards, etc.). Our theoretical model proposes that knowledge sourcing of rules is driven by inherent incompleteness of rules as a result of bounded rationality of rule makers and rule making process. Incomplete rules can lead to experiences of insufficient rule knowledge, termed “knowledge gaps,” which are shaped by rule dynamics at the levels of individual rules, the rule system, and rule networks. Our theoretical model leads to several hypotheses that we test with longitudinal archival data of clinical practice guideline (CPG) changes in a Canadian healthcare organization. The findings support our theoretical model of incomplete organizational rules which encounter knowledge gaps and close them through internal and external knowledge sourcing. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".