MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043445101 · doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0544

Reflections on The 2009<i>AMR</i>Decade Award: Do We Have A Theory of Organizational Learning?

2011· article· en· W2043445101 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

VenueAcademy of Management Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational theoryOrganizational learningSociologyCitationOrganizational behaviorManagementKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having received the “Decade Award” for the most cited AMR article from the past decade, we reflect on how our framework of organizational learning (OL) has been used in subsequent research and whether a theory of OL has emerged. Our citation review revealed that although some of the subsequent research has added to the original work, the challenge to develop an accepted theory remains unrealized. We offer promising directions for developing a theory of OL.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.217 · 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