MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087346960 · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0918

The Coevolution of Industries, Social Movements, and Institutions: Wind Power in the United States

2014· article· en· W2087346960 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

VenueOrganization Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)ConceptualizationProcess (computing)CoevolutionEconomic geographyIndustrial organizationBusinessSocial movementEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEcologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study of the U.S. wind energy industry extends theory on the process of industry emergence by developing and testing a coevolutionary model of the relationship between social movement organizations (SMOs), institutions, and industries. Building on research that suggests that SMOs can influence institutions and the path of emerging industries, we show that the growth of an industry can also influence the diversity of social movements by motivating the participation of specialist SMOs. These new SMOs in turn deploy distinct knowledge, capabilities, goals, and strategies to produce institutional changes that are necessary for the continued growth of the industry. Our study offers a more complete conceptualization of the influence of social movements on industry emergence and growth, and it extends understanding of how SMO diversity is produced.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · 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