Abordagens da produção científica em administração publicada na base scopus à luz da teoria institucional, de 2000 a 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo teve como objetivo analisar a produção científica sobre Teoria Institucional indexada na base de dados Scopus voltada para a área de Administração, no período de 2000 a 2013. Evidenciou-se que: o autor mais prolífico sobre a temática da Teoria Institucional é Currie, G.; as universidades com maior publicação foram a University of Alberta e University of Nottingham. No cenário nacional, duas revistas aparecem, a RAE – Revista de Administração de Empresas e a Revista de Administração pública; já no cenário internacional, as revistas que possuem maior destaque são a Human Relations, o Journal of Business Ethics, o Business Strategy and the Environment e Critical Perspectives on Accounting. A área do conhecimento que aborda a Teoria Institucional é predominante nas ciências sociais e corresponde a 40,4% do total.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.066 | 0.088 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".