MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984967109 · doi:10.1002/cjas.79

Constructing a legitimate history: crisis, legitimacy, and the atlantic schools of Business Conferences

2008· article· en· W1984967109 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brad S. Long, Rhonda Pyper, Adam Rostis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyIsomorphism (crystallography)Context (archaeology)PerceptionPublic relationsPolitical scienceOrganizational structureProcess (computing)SociologyPublic administrationLawPsychologyComputer scienceHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Atlantic Schools of Business (ASB) conference is one of the longest running academic business conferences in Canada. It continued without the structure of an organizing committee for 34 years. In its 35th year, however, a formal structure was adopted. The adoption of formal structure provides an opportunity to look critically at the change process from various perspectives. This paper takes three interrelated approaches: reviews of archival material to provide context; surveys of ASB membership to ascertain individual perceptions of the organization's purpose; and interviews with key individuals involved in the change process to examine the decision to formalize. Our analysis shows that perceived organizational crisis and a search for enhanced legitimacy can precipitate isomorphism and exclude alternative avenues for change. Copyright © 2008 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.035
Scholarly communication0.0280.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207