MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049213900 · doi:10.1177/0021886301372005

Organizational Development and Change Management

2001· article· en· W2049213900 on OpenAlexaff
Henry A. Hornstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsideOrganizational changePreferencePsychologyOrganization developmentManagementPublic relationsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent issues of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Farias and Johnson and Worren, Ruddle, and Moore have engaged in a dialogue about the validity of discarding organizational development as a profession in preference for creating a new one called “change management. ” The former say such a move is premature, whereas the latter advocate this shift. The article supports Farias and Johnson and suggests that it is inappropriate to cast aside a profession simply because business has failed to heed its counsel.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207