Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the principal ways in which musical improvisation has impacted upon corporations, businesses, and other institutions is through the metaphor of 'the jazz band.' This paper explores the emergence of this metaphor and examines the significance and meaning that it has generated, as well as the ways that it might help us to understand social organizations. This metaphor has been used to provide insights into leadership, organizations, schools as learning communities, and even the meaning of life itself. While this is not an exhaustive list, these examples demonstrate the wide range of contexts in which this metaphor can be applied. This paper serves two purposes. First, it provides a critical evaluation of six examples of the jazz band metaphor in order to explore the significance of this metaphor and identify the contribution it has made to our broader understanding of improvisation. Second, it views the use of this metaphor as a leadership strategy, and attempts to identify the ethical implications, for leaders, for appropriating concepts derived from musical improvisation and applying them in non-musical contexts. The paper concludes with the view that we need to go beyond metaphor, and argues for inter-disciplinary research on improvisation within musical and organizational contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".