The Dynamics of Client-Consultant Relationships: Exploring the Interplay of Power and Knowledge
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
In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of client-consultant relationships and analyze how power and knowledge are shared and negotiated between consultants and clients during the implementation of configurable technologies. Empirical evidence is provided by three case studies representing three classic types of client-consultant relationships. We draw on two complementary perspectives: possession view (i.e., power and knowledge are based on resources that can be owned or controlled by individuals) and practice view (i.e., power and knowledge are relational in nature and exercised in action). The paper develops a framework that shows that power and knowledge are closely intertwined and that the possession and practice views are complementary in understanding configurable technology projects. The paper also demonstrates the importance of the initial set-up of the project and how knowing/powering mechanisms can reinforce or change implementation trajectories, which, in turn, can affect project results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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