<b>Business as a pretext? Managing social-economic tensions on a social enterprise’s websites</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquity of tensions and paradoxes in organizations is increasingly acknowledged, but literature is scarce on the actual practices mobilized to deal with them. This paper explores how the social-economic tension experienced by a social enterprise is dealt with discursively through its mission statement and two websites. While first sight observations suggest that the poles of the tension are split between the two websites (one regular and one transactional/for online sales), closer analysis reveals the micro-strategies used to innovatively reformulate and reconnect the poles. The store (online and physical) appears as “more than a store”, and communities are numerous and shifting in territorial and membership terms. This paradox-inspired analysis shows how the social and the economic are textually intertwined, but it also shows further “intra-pole” tensions. Websites appear as “sites of action” that allow the tensions to be both stressed (through the splitting of the organization over two sites) and accepted (through the links they allow to create between the poles, within and between texts), while constituting an organization with social and economic goals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".