MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109618864 · doi:10.1177/0894486512474036

Managing Boundaries Through Identity Work

2013· article· en· W2109618864 on OpenAlex
Joshua R. Knapp, Brett R. Smith, Glen E. Kreiner, Chamu Sundaramurthy, Sidney L. Barton

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

VenueFamily Business Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)Boundary (topology)Boundary-workWork (physics)Boundary spanningOrganizational identitySocial identity approachSocial identity theoryIdentity managementSociologyPublic relationsQualitative researchFamily businessKnowledge managementBusinessMarketingPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial groupProcess (computing)Social scienceOrganizational commitmentEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on boundary and identity theories, we examine how individuals manage boundaries in family businesses. Using an inductive, qualitative approach based on interviews of 44 individuals in four family businesses, we find organizational members use 13 identity work tactics, collectively labeled social boundary management, to create and manage boundaries for both individual and organizational identities. We illustrate how individuals use identity work tactics to integrate and segment themselves and others between the domains of family and business. Our findings have implications for family business research, boundary theory, and identity theory.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.015
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.011

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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