MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118849808 · doi:10.1123/jsm.18.2.158

Strategic Change and the Role of Interests, Power, and Organizational Capacity

2004· article· en· W2118849808 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Amis, Trevor Slack, C. R. Hinings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipPower (physics)Organizational changeOrganizational structurePublic relationsOrganizational cultureProcess (computing)Organizational commitmentBusinessPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of subunit interests, power arrangements, and organizational capacity in a program of radical transformation of a group of Canadian National Sport Organizations (NSOs). Using realtime data collected over a 12-year period, six case studies were constructed to provide insight into the role that these internal dynamics had on the propensity of organizations to change. Results showed that NSOs that completed the transformation possessed leadership with the technical and behavioral capacity for change, had an organizational structure in which volunteers were willing to share power with professional staff, and engaged in an all-encompassing transformation process that embraced the entire organization. By contrast, those NSOs that failed to complete the change lacked effective transformational leadership, had a structure in which power was retained centrally by volunteer board members, and were characterized by ongoing struggles among subunits to protect their own interests.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations146
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport ManagementSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207