MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093309197 · doi:10.1177/0170840605049465

Legitimating Agencies in the Face of Selection: The Case of AACSB

2005· article· en· W2093309197 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 Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimationLegitimacyFace (sociological concept)AccreditationDomain (mathematical analysis)Quality (philosophy)Public relationsSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)BusinessPolitical scienceSociologyLawEpistemologyPoliticsComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes that legitimating agencies such as accreditation organizations face selection pressures to both maintain their legitimacy among their constituents, but also to expand the domain of their activities. We argue that domain expansion raises three important research questions: first, the factors that lead legitimating agencies to expand their domain; second, the need to maintain legitimacy among existing constituents; and third, the establishment of legitimacy in the new domain. We use the domain expansion of the AACSB to develop propositions relevant to these three research issues. Quality concerns, process vs. content strategy, and institutional entrepreneurship are the main factors that impact the legitimation of legitimating agencies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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