MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032930601 · doi:10.1177/0263211x020301007

Imagining Good Organizations

2002· article· en· W2032930601 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

VenueEducational Management & Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorRedressSociologyVariety (cybernetics)Economic JusticeEpistemologyEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a philosophical and methodological analysis which aims to support research on social justice in educational organizations. It traces a path from Thomas Greenfield’s ethical formulations to the moral philosophy of Jurgen Habermas and does so in order to query the ethical implications of following Greenfield in imagining educational organizations as ‘moral orders’. It argues that such a metaphor is problematic for guiding research with a social justice focus because it does not adequately conceive its own ethical basis, and thus cannot address (or redress) moral authority in organization. It claims that Greenfield’s metaphor requires substantial revision, such that organizations are better regarded as moral communities. The implications of this revised metaphor are discussed with respect to a variety of key issues in educational administration and 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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.252 · 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