MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047996239 · doi:10.1108/09534810310502568

Emancipatory potential of action learning:a critical analysis

2003· article· en· W2047996239 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

VenueJournal of Organizational Change Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentalismSociologyPrivilege (computing)Action (physics)Power (physics)Context (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Action learningCritical theoryEpistemologyDemocracyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsPedagogyComputer scienceTeaching methodCooperative learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Action learning (AL) methods are popular technologies in programs of organizational learning (OL). However, from the perspective of critical studies, they are instrumentalist, managerialist, exclusive in design, decontextualized and apolitical. A critical analysis of the oppressive potential of AL is presented along these dimensions. To realize better AL's emancipatory potential, four enhancements are suggested: focus AL purpose more on workers’ interests; confront organizational practices that unjustly marginalize or privilege different people; acknowledge the complexity, context and contested nature of learning; and facilitate AL using democratic “power with”, not “power over”, approaches to working with people towards emancipatory change.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.226 · 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