Secret Agencies: The Communicative Constitution of a Clandestine Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue challenges scholars to consider the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of viewing organizations as ‘constituted in and through human communication.’ Interrogating the work of one of the most influential approaches to the study of the constitutive nature of organizing, the oeuvre of James Taylor and his colleagues or what has become known as the Montreal School, we identify an implicit assumption of organizational transparency. We suggest that unpacking ‘the transparency principle’ helps build a richer framework that builds upon the foundations of the Montreal School, facilitates empirical inquiry, and highlights several aspects of the social context which are typically taken for granted within organizational studies. Expanding Taylor et al.’s orientation to clandestine organizations, we address the question posed by the editors in the call for papers: ‘How does a communication-as-constitutive of organization’s perspective shape understandings of the organization’s embeddedness in social contexts?’ Clandestine organizations embody secret agency and intriguing possibilities for understanding the ways in which social actors communicatively constitute organizations. The metaconversations of clandestine organizing take place in a complex socio-political historical context, and exploration of these metaconversations not only furthers our understanding of illicit and clandestine systems but also provides new insights into the communicative constitution of contemporary organizations in general.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".