MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125424353 · doi:10.1177/1056492614546897

Methods, Theories, Data, and the Social Dynamics of Organizational Research

2014· article· en· W2125424353 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Bitektine, Danny Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Inquiry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarcitySet (abstract data type)SociologyOrganizational ecologyOrganization studiesProcess (computing)Organizational theoryEpistemologyOrganizational behaviorResource (disambiguation)Positive economicsManagement scienceData sciencePsychologySocial scienceEconomicsComputer scienceManagementSocial psychologyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterize organizational research as a process driven by researcher’s adaptations to institutional pressures and resource constraints. Drawing on observations on the evolution of several research paradigms in management, organizational studies, and other disciplines, we argue that constraints on the set of legitimate research questions posed within a given theory, institutionalized research methods, and available/collectable data lead to a scarcity in opportunities for publishable contributions, and eventually to the decline of a research paradigm. We direct researchers’ attention to a number of symptoms of paradigm maturation and suggest strategies that are sometimes used to extend paradigm life. We also suggest that not all types of researchers working within a paradigm are equally affected by its maturation, and describe some implications of overly strict constraints on methods, theories, and data for the evolution of research paradigms and for careers of individual 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.

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)0.009
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management InquirySame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207