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

8 resources

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.

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 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.

Framework

C.O.R.E. — Communities of Resilience and Excellence

NIST Baldrige Program / C.O.R.E. · EN

A Baldrige-aligned approach supporting community collaboration, shared priorities, data use and continuous improvement.

Why this source?

Shows an established way to organise work across institutions when exploring community resilience and knowledge dependencies.

What to bear in mind

A programme overview, not causal evidence that the approach works in every setting or validation of ArtiProof’s society proposal.

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.

Reference

Operationalisation of Open Strategic Autonomy in industrial innovation

Fraunhofer ISI · 2023 · EN

Project description explaining the concepts and patent, trade and production data behind research on open strategic autonomy.

Why this source?

Makes the research setting behind the JRC report visible and helps compare what different autonomy measures actually observe.

What to bear in mind

Background to the same research project as the JRC report; it is not independent corroboration or a separate validation study.

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 ·

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 →