Communication-Centered Approaches in German Management Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to many other countries, particularly the United States and Canada, in the German-speaking parts of the world, research on organizational communication that addresses organizations as communicative phenomena (see Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1996) is conducted almost exclusively by scholars affiliated with faculties of business and management in academic institutions.While management scholars have discovered the communication lens as a powerful tool for studying organizational phenomena, scholars in the field of communication studies have not taken any particular interest in organization theory.As a consequence, German-speaking researchers in organizational communication typically focus on issues of organization and management and employ the communication lens only as a means of dealing with these questions.Like many other areas in German management studies (Ortmann & Seidl, 2011), the field of organizational communication is strongly influenced by concepts originating in sociology and philosophy.More precisely, the theories of five eminent European sociologists or philosophers-namely, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Niklas Luhmann, John Austin, Jürgen Habermas, and Michel Foucault have shaped five distinct communication-centered streams of Forum
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".