MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004283478 · doi:10.1177/0893318901152003

Constructing Knowledge in an Organization

2001· article· en· W2004283478 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

VenueManagement Communication Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)InstitutionProcess (computing)Writing processProfessional writingSociologyEducational institutionComputer scienceLinguisticsKnowledge managementPsychologyPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the author takes a discourse-analytic approach to study the research that two managers carried out in an educational institution to produce and legitimate knowledge that would be used for decision making in the institution. The author suggests that the various steps of any research and writing process can be understood as a system of genres, some written, some spoken, that must be produced in a particular relationship to each other for the final written report of the research to be accepted as a legitimate research report. The author focuses on one aspect of the research process, the production of data through the writing and reading of notes taken by the managers during interviews conducted as part of their research. The author shows that the writing and reading of these notes was a crucial step in the construction of the knowledge on which the decision making was based.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
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