Read, compare, question

Knowledge to build on.

Research, standards and practical sources on knowledge, human judgement and AI. Each source explains its relevance and the limits of what you can conclude from it.

60 resources · 11 topics · EN / NL

Five places to start

A short route: understand the proposition, compare established practice and test the claims.

  1. Understand the propositionArtiProof · whitepaper 1.2
  2. Compare established practiceISO 30401 · knowledge management
  3. Examine human judgementBainbridge · Ironies of Automation
  4. Trace the provenanceW3C · PROV-O
  5. Make claims testableCOS · Registered Reports

ArtiProof · AP-WP-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05

Our whitepapers

Five whitepapers, with versions and direct PDF links. The sector and society papers are available in English and Dutch. Our own research propositions are clearly labelled as ArtiProof material.

Explore the five whitepapers →All publications and earlier editionsFor the general whitepaper, NL 1.1 is an earlier edition; the new sector and society papers each have Dutch and English versions 1.0.

Explore the library

Clear filters

18 resources

Our whitepaperStart here

Keeping Organisational Knowledge Dependable in the Age of AI

ArtiProof / KopKen VZW · 2026 · EN · 1.2 EN

The current English introduction to Source, Craft and Generated Knowledge and the five assurance properties.

Why this source?

Start with the proposition being investigated, then compare it with established approaches and critical evidence.

What to bear in mind

Informative ArtiProof publication. Research-ready, not broadly independently validated; first independent replication pending.

Our whitepaper

ArtiProof and ISO 30401 — From Knowledge Management to Knowledge-Fitness Review

ArtiProof / KopKen VZW · 2026 · EN · 1.1 EN

A proposed review of specific knowledge dependencies within an existing knowledge-management environment.

Why this source?

Read alongside ISO 30401; test added value against competent knowledge management and ordinary peer review.

What to bear in mind

Informative ArtiProof publication. Research-ready, not broadly independently validated; first independent replication pending. No ISO endorsement or route to conformity.

Our whitepaper

Who Will Know How Tomorrow? A Sector Perspective

ArtiProof / KopKen VZW · 2026 · EN / NL · 1.0 · EN / NL

Examines how a sector can retain the knowledge and craft capability needed to act when people, suppliers and technologies change.

Why this source?

Extends the knowledge question across organisational boundaries: who can understand, transfer and recover a consequential capability?

What to bear in mind

Conceptual whitepaper, version 1.0. Proposed applications require testing; publication does not establish independent validation.

Our whitepaper

Knowledge Autonomy in Society

ArtiProof / KopKen VZW · 2026 · EN / NL · 1.0 · EN / NL

Explores whether a society retains enough understanding and practical capability to sustain selected functions under changing dependencies.

Why this source?

Connects knowledge autonomy with informed reliance, institutional learning and the ability to respond when usual support is unavailable.

What to bear in mind

Conceptual whitepaper, version 1.0. It proposes bounded investigation, not a national ranking or a validated societal assurance measure.

StandardStart here

ISO 30401:2018 — Knowledge management systems

ISO · 2018 · EN

Knowledge management as an established organisational discipline.

Why this source?

A strong comparator for ArtiProof: start by crediting what competent knowledge management already provides.

What to bear in mind

Paid standard; public overview. Consult the applicable edition for requirements.

Established foundation

Access may be restricted ·

Research paper

Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation

Wesley M. Cohen & Daniel A. Levinthal · Administrative Science Quarterly · 1990 · EN

Develops absorptive capacity: recognising, assimilating and applying external knowledge, drawing on prior related knowledge.

Why this source?

A foundation for asking whether access to information is accompanied by the capability to understand and use it.

What to bear in mind

An organisational learning and innovation argument, not a direct test of ArtiProof or societal knowledge autonomy. Full-text access may be restricted.

Established foundation

Access may be restricted ·

Research paper

A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation

Ikujiro Nonaka · Organization Science · 1994 · EN

A theoretical account of organisational knowledge creation involving tacit and explicit knowledge.

Why this source?

Credits an established knowledge-management foundation when discussing how practical understanding and articulated information interact.

What to bear in mind

Conceptual background, not a finding that all practical knowledge can be captured in documents. Publisher metadata and abstract; full access may be restricted.

Established foundation

Access may be restricted ·

Research report

Assessing Open Strategic Autonomy

Henning Kroll · European Commission Joint Research Centre · 2023 · EN

Develops a two-dimensional index of EU-27 autonomy in industrial ecosystems and strategic technologies.

Why this source?

A comparator for distinguishing production and innovation dependencies from the narrower knowledge questions in the sector and society papers.

What to bear in mind

An aggregate policy analysis with its own indicators and scope. Its results cannot be transferred directly to an organisation or an ArtiProof assessment.

Research paper

Generative AI at Work

Brynjolfsson, Li & Raymond · 2025 · EN

A field study of AI assistance among customer-support agents reports productivity gains, with differences across workers.

Why this source?

A positive counterweight: AI can help spread useful practice, so knowledge loss should not be assumed.

What to bear in mind

Staggered deployment in one business setting; neither a universal productivity forecast nor validation of ArtiProof.

Research report

Global Knowledge Index 2025

UNDP / Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Foundation · 2025 · EN

Compares national knowledge systems through indicators covering education, research, technology, the economy and their wider environment.

Why this source?

A useful comparison for the society paper: national knowledge conditions and the ability to sustain a specific function are different questions.

What to bear in mind

An aggregate index, not a direct measure of operational knowledge fitness. The report is the 2025 edition; the linked publication page is dated February 2026.

Framework

INK-managementmodel

Stichting INK · NL

An established Dutch-language organisational development model.

Why this source?

Provides a local-language comparison for management, learning and improvement.

What to bear in mind

The framework's own description is not independent evidence of effectiveness.

Comparator

Link checked ·

Research review

Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review

Soderstrom & Bjork / UCLA · 2015 · EN

Explains why immediate task performance can diverge from lasting learning.

Why this source?

Supports assessing retention and transfer, rather than assuming successful assisted work proves independent capability.

What to bear in mind

Review of learning research, not a study of generative AI or ArtiProof.

Research paper

Organizational Memory

James P. Walsh & Gerardo Rivera Ungson · Academy of Management Review · 1991 · EN

Develops a framework for organisational memory and the acquisition, retention and retrieval of information.

Why this source?

Provides established concepts for examining what organisations preserve and how retained information becomes available for later work.

What to bear in mind

Conceptual foundation, not a direct test of knowledge recovery or ArtiProof. The publisher abstract was checked; full-text access may be restricted.

Established foundation

Access may be restricted ·

Guidance

Oslo Manual 2018 — Business innovation and knowledge flows

OECD / Eurostat · 2018 · EN

Chapter 6 describes knowledge flows, collaboration and their measurement across firms and other innovation actors.

Why this source?

Provides established concepts for investigating knowledge exchange between companies, education and research in a sector.

What to bear in mind

Statistical guidance for innovation measurement. Knowledge flows do not by themselves demonstrate dependable knowledge or recovery capability.

Established foundation

Link checked ·

Research paper

The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach

Haridimos Tsoukas · Strategic Management Journal · 1996 · EN

Argues that organisational knowledge is dispersed, situated and continually emerging; no single actor can fully oversee it.

Why this source?

Challenges overly complete knowledge inventories and helps keep proposed knowledge maps bounded and revisable.

What to bear in mind

A conceptual argument. It does not imply that every dependency map is useless or that a specific mapping method has been tested.

Reference

The Tacit Dimension

Michael Polanyi · University of Chicago Press · 2009 · EN

A classic account of tacit knowing: practical understanding includes elements that cannot be fully put into words. Originally published in 1966.

Why this source?

A foundation and corrective for discussing Craft Knowledge without treating expertise as merely undocumented information.

What to bear in mind

The linked 2009 edition is a publisher description, not an open full text. No complete-book review is claimed here.

Established foundation

Access may be restricted ·

About this selection

We select sources that clarify a concrete knowledge question, credit existing work or offer a serious challenge. Standards, practical advice, philosophical arguments and empirical studies carry different kinds of evidence. Inclusion implies no partnership, certification or validation of ArtiProof.

KopKen inspired part of this selection. This library has its own focus on organisational knowledge, evaluation and justified reliance. KopKen →

Checking and maintenance

Link checks concern access, not the truth of every claim. The commentary is an editorial summary, not a systematic review or full methodological assessment.

Editorially revised: .

Report an error or suggest a source →