MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973483033 · doi:10.1108/eb045794

Are the Organizations Prepared for a Real Efficacy of the Socail and Collective Development? A Critical Reflexion in a Latin American Context

2005· article· en· W1973483033 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Maria Davila Gomez, Jair Nascimento Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Responsibility Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityContext (archaeology)SociologyEpistemologyArticulation (sociology)Power (physics)Action (physics)Critical management studiesSocial responsibilityOrder (exchange)Public relationsSocial sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of the present, most organizations are developing towards a so‐called efficacy proposed by a world of economic and scientific predominance. As a consequence, organizations have become the target of insignificant actions by human beings, reducing the individuals to automatons. It is necessary to rescue the real nature of organizations and to make changes inside them, in order to attend to the individual diversity and the needs of the community. Thus, only a reflexive and critical look at the articulation of tangible things may help us. Certainly, those are the intentions of our paper, when we propose actions to reach a relation between the individuals and the organizations, using elements extracted from theoretical currents whose authors analyze those subjects as recurrent ones (structuralism, critical theory and post‐modernism). Initially, the paper makes a reflection on the nature of current organizational reality and the theoretical basis often present nowadays. Hereby, we present some propositions and put in question our responsibility as students, professors, researchers and managers, for having in our hands the power to decide if we want continuity or change. Finally, we propose some methodological guidelines for research oriented to elucidate the reality of the reflections afore mentioned. Hence, we argue the need to conduct critical‐action research, by illustrating and questioning the social responsibility of one type of Latin‐American company, petroleum companies, for which we show the social‐environmental impacts of their strategic decisions. Our critical reflections and propositions come from two sources: one is our biographical experience from almost twelve years in Latin‐American countries, either as managers or professors, and the second one is some results of our current research interest regarding social responsibility in the themes of equity and organizational objectives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Responsibility JournalSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207