How constructions of the future shape organizational responses: climate change and the Canadian oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This empirical study examines the relationship between constructions of the future and anticipated organizational responses to climate change. Findings from the Athabasca oil sands region of Alberta, Canada indicate that actors’ views of climate change affect not only the way they construct the future of oil sands development, but also which responses they see as legitimate. Specifically, whether actors construct a future of no development, partial development or full development of the oil sands, influences the combinations of organizational responses they recommend (i.e. not responding, lobbying, engaging, developing and informing). These findings contribute to our understanding of organizational responses to climate change by showing that (1) climate action requires more than actors simply viewing climate change as strategic; (2) different constructions of the future create alternative strategic environments that necessitate divergent responses; (3) strong future constructions narrow the repertoire of business responses to climate change; and (4) in this process governments play a crucial role beyond setting climate change policy. This study thus highlights the importance of studying future constructions if we want to understand current organizational responses to environmental issues that contribute to climate change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".