Uncovering system teleology: a case for reading unconscious patterns of purposive intent in organizations
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
Abstract Contemporary organizations are teleological—purposive—structures, designed to fulfil myriad societal needs. The purposive efforts of any organization are shaped by knowledge. Organizational knowledge includes both conscious and unconscious dimensions. This paper argues that a similar duality applies to organizational teleology. Organizational behaviour unfolds in service to consciously understood teleological aims (such as corporate strategies and business plans) and also unconscious teleological aims (that are undesigned or emergent), which are subtler to detect. Said differently, organizational behaviour is always purposive. Many of the intentions driving organizational behaviour are publicly understood and sanctioned; others are less well understood and unsanctioned. To the degree that some purposive behaviour in organizations remains unconscious, it may detract resources from managerial objectives and confound organizational change efforts. Drawing from facets of systems theory, this paper briefly discusses collective, purposive, and patterned characteristics of unconscious behaviour that may help practitioners to detect and respond to it. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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