Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".