The Wizards of Oz: Towards an Institutional Approach to Elites, Expertise and Command Posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past half century, organizational studies scholarship has increasingly drifted away from addressing broader societal and political issues, as well as an interest in developing policy-relevant recommendations. In this paper, we argue that the time is ripe for a systematic re-engagement with how the dynamics of economy and society are fundamentally shaped by various elites, new forms of expertise, and their command posts — centers of societal power that regulate, oversee, and aim to maintain social order. Recalling early efforts by C. Wright Mills and his contemporaries, we call for the development of an institutional approach to the study of elites and command posts that draws on contemporary theories of power and culture to inform the creation of a new body of knowledge to inform our understanding of policy making and implementation. Drawing on a diverse array of sociological literatures and examples, the institutionalist agenda we lay out requires research that goes beyond a focus on any particular nation-state; a cumulative research program that embraces cross-national comparative studies and the study of international elites and command posts that operate across nation-states is crucial.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".