Sexuality and organizational analysis—30 years on: Editorial introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gibson Burrell’s ‘Sex and organizational analysis’, published in Organization Studies in 1984, represented an extremely important contribution to the development of critical management and organization studies. It was based on the application of insights from various disciplinary fields such as sociology, philosophy and social history to the study of sexuality in work organizations. Thirty years on, while sexuality remains a relatively marginal topic in mainstream organization studies, a substantial body of ideas has emerged in more critical quarters representing a flourishing dialogue that, in the spirit of Burrell’s earlier contribution, has stretched across disciplinary boundaries. In recent years, this sub-field has been inspired and influenced particularly by the impact of feminist theory and post-structuralism, as well as insights from queer theory and post-colonialism. Alongside these important theoretical developments, lived experiences of sexuality within organizations have changed considerably during the last three decades. As consumers and workers our lives are shaped by the ubiquity of organizations and by the centrality of sexuality to our lives; ‘we live, in short, in a sexualized world’ (Hawkes, 2002: 1). With the economies of most contemporary market societies being supported by thriving sex industries and sexualized modes of commercial exchange, sexuality has arguably never been so controlled, commodified and commercialized. An ever-expanding range of goods and services are provided and consumed
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".