Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the paper is to present a provocative view of what Peter Drucker would be writing about today in his self‐described role as a social ecologist. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses Drucker's qualitative framework to ask what changes that contravene conventional wisdom have already happened, whether they are relevant and meaningful and what opportunities they present. Findings The paper suggest that the concepts of ecological rationality and embodied cognition form the basis for a new framework to challenge the hegemony of the existing concepts of rationality based on frameworks drawn from neoclassical economics. Practical implications The primary implication is that an ecological framework of “both … and” is needed to embrace and contain the “either/or” of economics. This will sweep the liberal and fine arts back into management, render the concept and role of power in organizations discussable and place ethics, prudence and judgement at the centre of the management challenge. Originality/value The paper presents a provocative perspective that, if valid, with be extremely disruptive of the current Western management paradigm.
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".