MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015152614 · doi:10.17722/ijme.v3i2.189

A Comparative Analysis of Defensive Routines and Theories-In-Use of Engineering and Non-Engineering Managers

2014· article· en· W2015152614 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management Excellence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionKnowledge managementComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering managers are managers who have an understanding of both the technical and business aspects of organizations. However, the success of an engineering manager depends on being knowledgeable in both the business and technical functions of an organization. There is a perception that engineers experience challenges in areas such as communication, conflict resolution, and leadership. Defensive routines are actions implemented as a result of being in an embarrassing or threatening situation. This research uses a case study approach to measure whether defensive routines are more common in engineering managers or non-engineering managers. 27 managers created case studies based on their unique experiences as managers. These case studies were scored and the results show that defensive routines are more common in engineering managers than non-engineering mangers.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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