Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning
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
An important new stream of organizational research has emerged in recent years that draws on the notion of mindfulness. At the same time, there is a long-standing body of work in the organizations literature that emphasizes the role of routine-driven, or less-mindful, behavior. We attempt to connect these two seemingly disparate literatures arguing that, at a performative level, important elements of less-mindful processes are necessary elements underlying mindfulness. In particular, we note the role of established action repertories that facilitate the response to novel stimuli and how routines and established role structures enable mindfulness to be sustained across time and the span of the organization. Similarly, we note important elements of mindfulness that underlie less-mindful behavior, highlighting in particular the role of mindfulness in interpreting one’s context so as to identify what constitutes appropriate action in a given circumstance and in interpreting outcomes that form the basis for processes of reinforcement learning. Although we emphasize the complementarity between the two perspectives, we also note points of tension regarding the opportunity costs of mindfulness and the theories’ implied normative claims.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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