MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030545186 · doi:10.1108/14720700510562721

Organizations which make a difference: a philosophical argument for the “people focused organization”

2005· article· en· W2030545186 on OpenAlexaff
Ed Weymes

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Governance · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityBureaucracyArgument (complex analysis)Control (management)Key (lock)SociologyDreamDeterminismKnowledge managementPublic relationsManagementComputer scienceEpistemologyEconomicsPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional management theory is grounded in the concept of bureaucracy which provides a platform for managers to control behavior. When behavior is controlled, personal freedom and the ability to innovate are curtailed, yet creativity is a key driver competitive advantage. Creativity is unleashed when individuals are provided with the opportunity to express their individual freedom, when they feel their actions make a difference. Organizations, bounded only by economic motives, fail to provide such an environment, but when an organization extends its focus to encompass society and the environment, members of the organization can be inspired to share the dream of the organization. This paper explores the traditional management concepts, and presents the reader with a philosophy that both encourages individual freedom and maintains an ordered society. The paper concludes by applying the philosophy to a model for organization design, which facilitates individual freedom and retains the controls necessary to meet performance targets.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.065
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorporate GovernanceSame topicManagement Theory and PracticeFrench-language works237,207