Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Previous work on paradox and contradiction has argued for management approaches that transcend dilemmas through a kind of creative synthesis. The purpose of this paper is to investigate empirically how change leaders' efforts to transcend contradictions emerge, evolve and contribute to organizational change. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses three case studies in different sectors drawing on interviews, documents and observations. Findings It is found that discourses of transcendence emerge as leaders bring new elements to the debate and supply a rationale that creatively bridges opposite poles of a dilemma. The credibility of the discourse is enhanced when it is embedded in extant institutional ideas, when stakeholders' interests and values appear to be accommodated and when leaders are viewed as legitimate. However, inherent contradictions tend to resurface over time, suggesting that while transcendence offers a powerful stimulus for change, its range and lifetime may be transitory. Three mechanisms associated with the acceptance of transcendent ideas (quasi‐resolution of conflict, strategic ambiguity and groupthink) may sow the seeds of their eventual re‐evaluation and dissolution. Originality/value By examining the antecedents and consequences of transcendent discourses over time, the paper provides a nuanced view of their potential and limitations.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it