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

Managing Boundaries Through Identity Work

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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Business ReviewSame topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207