Globalization, postcolonial theory, and organizational analysis
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 The purpose of this paper is three‐fold: to extend the scope of postcolonial theory to organizational analysis; to extend the scope of organizational analysis to the study of supranational organizations; and to examine the impact of postcolonial organizational thought on the conception and treatment of the Rwandan people. Design/methodology/approach Organizational (in)action, both prior to and during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, is subjected to postcolonial organizational analysis. Findings It is shown that so‐called global organizational relations are mediated by supranational organizations, such as the United Nations, whose organizational structuring and practices are rooted in imperialist and postcolonial thinking. Research limitations/implications It is recognised that the account of events presents an alternative but partial history of events in Rwanda. Practical implications The response to genocide in Rwanda by the global community represents a challenge to the promise of globalization, which posits that multinational organizational integration based on mutual interest is achievable. Originality/value The paper destablizes the notion of globalization and global cooperation by raising questions about the asymmetrical contexts in which supranational organizations operate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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