What Simon said: the impact of the major management works of Herbert Simon
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to trace the impact of a major management scholar, Herbert Simon. Design/methodology/approach A novel approach was employed in identifying the most influential research articles that have made use of Simon's two great management works, Administrative Behavior and Organizations (with James March). The list allowed the close analysis of the nature of the influence wielded by Herbert Simon on management scholarship. The process of analysis was guided by a targeted search. Google Scholar allowed the compilation of a list of top‐cited research articles that made use of the two books. The 25 most‐cited articles associated with each were then categorized by their subject matter and examined for the impact of Simon's research. Findings As measured by citations, Herbert Simon's influence on management scholarship has been immense. Administrative Behavior and Organizations have incurred huge numbers of citations, more than 7,000 each. Moreover, not one of the 50 papers populating the two lists has generated fewer than 1,000 citations. Both works contributed heavily to research on theories of the firm, organizational learning and knowledge, and on organizational coordination and decision‐making, among other topics. Originality/value An emerging research tool, Google Scholar, was engaged, allowing an empirically based analysis of Herbert Simon's contribution to management scholarship. The results mark, with unusual clarity, the direction and nature of Simon's enormous influence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it