MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1879411124 · doi:10.5430/jms.v6n4p1

Intra-organizational Selection: Phenomenon and Its Behavioural and Cultural Determining Factors

2015· article· en· W1879411124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewa Stańczyk-Hugiet, Katarzyna Piórkowska, Sylwia Stańczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Perspective (graphical)PhenomenonMechanism (biology)PropositionProcess (computing)Evolutionary theoryComputer scienceSociologyKnowledge managementManagement sciencePsychologyEpistemologyArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual scheme concerning intra-organizational determinants of primary selection. The authors present the evolutionary theory as appropriate background for the research approach. Consequently, this paper, stressing the importance of selection mechanism, reviews evolutionary achievements. There is also presented the review of routine approaches, as routines constitute the object of selection. Then, authors provide the proposition based on the theoretical review concerning the role of managerial and cultural selectors in organizational evolution, especially in the process of routines selection. This paper contributes to the body of research on the routines, evolutionary theory, behavioural and cultural stream of research. Thus, it explores the evolutionary approach from the perspective of primary selection and its determinants. The authors provide an extension to the selection logic as for behavioural and cultural determinants of primary selection. Due to practitioners, they are recommended to consider personal behavioural characteristics and cultural ones as either hindrance or enablers of changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207