MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115876298 · doi:10.1177/0170840614530914

Tools of Legitimacy: The Case of the Petrobras Corporate Blog

2014· article· en· W2115876298 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcos Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersPetrobrasUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
KeywordsLegitimacyCredibilityNewspaperNarrativePower (physics)Critical discourse analysisDiscourse analysisSociologyPublic relationsResistance (ecology)BattlePolitical scienceMedia studiesPoliticsLawIdeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we explore how organizations are using new social technologies as tools in the discursive struggle over legitimacy. Using critical discourse analysis, we investigate one such struggle between the corporate blog published by Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company, and traditional local newspapers. In this particular battle, Petrobras used several discursive strategies to challenge the media’s legitimacy and build its own credibility. Furthermore, we suggest that Petrobras, to underline and to support these strategies, employed a meta-discursive strategy based on a discourse of e-democracy that gave it legitimacy as a discourse producer. In addition, this article contributes to the literature on organizational discourse by uncovering the new social media’s characteristic of hyper-intertextuality that was central in transforming the dynamics of power and resistance and the nature of discursive strategies. Our work analyses how organizations can actively and effectively engage these new tools, which embody socially recognized discourses, to create their own discursive arena and legitimate their counter-narratives.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations78
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization StudiesSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207