Intentions, Intermediaries, and Interaction: Examining the Emergence of Routines
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
abstract A thorough understanding of how routines emerge is necessary to derive the performance benefits they yield for organizations. In this paper, we suggest that a routine emerges from interactions between actors, interactions that are enabled by the exchange of intermediaries . Specifically, intermediaries transmit the intentions of one actor to another and thus potentially align the actions and responses of those actors. If, however, the intermediaries that are exchanged do not clearly transmit the intentions of one actor to another, then a weak routine emerges. Conversely, if intermediaries clearly transmit the intentions, a strong routine emerges in which a given action more often meets with the expected response across iterations. We substantiate our arguments with a field experiment on the towel‐changing routine in a hotel where we manipulated the procedure to exchange towels, which resulted in the emergence of a stronger routine. Our study offers several implications for theoretical and empirical research on routines, including to the burgeoning research on micro‐foundations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it