MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Managing crises through organisational development: a conceptual framework

2010· article· en· W2114357995 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

VenueDisasters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPoison controlProcess managementSuicide preventionInjury preventionDevelopment (topology)EngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Construction engineeringForensic engineeringMedical emergencyBusinessComputer scienceKnowledge managementSystems engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a synthesis of the guiding principles in crisis management in accordance with the four configurational imperatives (strategy, structure, leadership and environment) defined by Miller (1987) and outlines interventions in organisational development (OD) that may contribute to their achievement. The aim is to build a conceptual framework at the intersection of these two fields that could help to strengthen the resilient capabilities of individuals, organisations and communities to face crises. This incursion into the field of OD--to generate more efficient configurations of practices in crisis management--seems particularly fruitful considering the system-wide application of OD, based on open-systems theory (Burke, 2008). Various interventions proposed by OD in terms of human processes, structural designs and human resource management, as well as strategy, may help leaders, members of organisations and civil society apply effectively, and in a more sustainable way, the crisis management guiding principles defined by researchers.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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