MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092761934 · doi:10.1108/09696470210442132

Rationalizing the promotion of non‐rational behaviors in organizations

2002· article· en· W2092761934 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

VenueThe Learning Organization · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalityOpenness to experiencePsychodynamicsPsychologyLeverage (statistics)Promotion (chess)Emotional intelligenceAction (physics)Public relationsSocial psychologySociologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contends that organizations designed according to current theories require that traits of leadership and personal responsibility be developed in employees at all levels of the organization, not just the formal leaders. Asserts that to develop these traits, organizations must strike an adequate balance between rationality/technical efficiency and non‐rational factors such as emotion. States that organizations currently operate with a facade of rationality, ignoring emotional reality. Argues that leverage for such change lies in working at team/group level meetings, changing the quality of interactions to enhance authenticity and create emotional openness. Maintains that action learning has so far proven the best vehicle for releasing emotional energy into the workplace if facilitators are utilized who can enrich the action learning process with skills drawn from disciplines such as counseling, Gestalt, psychodynamics, and psychoanalysis. Claims that familiarity with the principles of Eastern philosophies is also helpful.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.197 · 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