Analysing the thinking of F.W. Taylor using cognitive mapping
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the ideas of F.W. Taylor have profoundly marked the twentieth century, they do not seem to have been understood in the same way by the people who have studied them. Aims to enrich our understanding of the ideas of this remarkable author. Proposes a graphic representation of Taylor’s thinking in the form of a cognitive map. Then analyses the structure and content of the map using the Decision Explorer software package. Most of the concepts and links shown in the map were drawn from “Shop management”, and the remainder were taken from The Principles of Scientific Management . The results highlight the relative importance of the concepts used by Taylor, the dimensions on which he more or less consciously structured his thinking, together with the characteristics of the concepts he considered basically as “explanations” or “consequences”, and the more or less systemic or circular logic that guided him in the organization of his thinking. Discusses the limitations of the results and some future avenues for research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it