Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents:Volume I: Managing Learning and Knowledge AcknowledgementsIntroduction Making Learning and Knowledge Management More Effective Samuel Holloway and William H. StarbuckPART I ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 1. Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starbuck (1984), 'To Avoid Organizational Crises, Unlearn'2. J.-C. Spender (1996), 'Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Memory: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory'3. James B. Thomas, Stephanie Watts Sussman and John C. Henderson (2001), 'Understanding Strategic Learning: Linking Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Sensemaking'PART II LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS 4. Michael E. McGill, John W. Slocum, Jr. and David Lei (1992), 'Management in Learning Organizations'5. Bernard L. Simonin (1997), 'The Importance of Collaborative Know-How: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization'6. Eric W.K. Tsang (1997), 'Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research'PART III KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 7. Linda Argote, Sara L. Beckman and Dennis Epple (1990), 'The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings'8. Eric D. Darr, Linda Argote and Dennis Epple (1995), 'The Acquisition, Transfer, and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises'9. Linda Argote and Paul Ingram (2000), Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms'10. G.P. Huber (2001), 'Transfer of Knowledge in Knowledge Management Systems: Unexplored Issues and Suggested Studies'PART IV GENERAL PERSPECTIVES ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 11. Rod Coombs and Richard Hull (1998), 'Knowledge Management Practices and Path-Dependency in Innovation'12. Maryam Alavi and Dorothy E. Leidner (2001), 'Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues'13. Michael Earl (2001), Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy'14. Varun Grover and Thomas H. Davenport (2001), 'General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda'15. Andrew Hargadon and Angelo Fanelli (2002), 'Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations'16. Ulrike Schultze and Dorothy E. Leidner (2002), 'Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions'PART V CULTURAL ISSUES IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 17. Andrew C. Inkpen and Adva Dinur (1998), Management Processes and International Joint Ventures'18. David W. De Long and Liam Fahey (2000), 'Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management'19. Molly McLure Wasko and Samer Faraj (2005), 'Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice'PART VI MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION 20. Ravindranath Madhavan and Rajiv Grover (1998), 'From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge: New Product Development as Knowledge Management'21. Pier Paolo Saviotti (1998), 'On the Dynamics of Appropriability, of Tacit and of Codified Knowledge'22. Heeseok Lee and Byounggu Choi (2003), Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination'PART VII KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND OUTCOMES 23. Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Rajiv Sabherwal (2001), 'Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective'24. Andrew H. Gold, Arvind Malhotra and Albert H. Segars (2001), Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective'25. Peter J. Sher and Vivid C. Lee (2004), 'Information Technology as a Facilitator for Enhancing Dynamic Capabilities through Knowledge Management'26. Huseyin S. Tanriverdi (2005), 'Information Technology Relatedness, Knowledge Management Capability, and Performance of Multibusiness Firms'Name Index
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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".