MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967642630 · doi:10.1108/14630010310812163

Interaction, identity and collocation: What value is a corporate campus?

2003· article· en· W1967642630 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Real Estate · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate identityCorporate communicationFlexibility (engineering)Collocation (remote sensing)BusinessSet (abstract data type)Identity (music)Value (mathematics)Corporate sustainabilityPublic relationsCorporate governanceMarketingCorporate social responsibilityEconomicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceManagementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate campuses have been justified on many grounds, including lower operational costs, greater flexibility, stronger corporate branding and enhanced cross‐functional communication. Despite the tens of millions of dollars spent to acquire and develop them, little research exists that has systematically tested the validity of the benefits attributed to a corporate campus. This paper reports on an initial set of case studies examining one potential benefit of a corporate campus: the nature and extent of communication across organisational units. The results suggest that the amount of cross‐unit communication on a corporate campus may be less than expected. Implications for workplace and collocation strategies are discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.012
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.221 · 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