MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139036850 · doi:10.1177/0263211x020301008

Imagining the Good Organization

2002· article· en· W2139036850 on OpenAlexaff
Carol E. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Management & Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical and Liberation Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyRationalityContext (archaeology)Theme (computing)The artsPublic relationsSocial scienceEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the views of a wide range of theorists, including in particular Greene, Greenfield and Habermas, the author argues for the need, if we are to conceive of new possibilities for ourselves and for society, for imagination. In this context, a persistent theme of rural communities, once heavily dependent on a single economic resource, surrounds the need for innovative leaders who are capable of imagining new options and willing to take considered risks. Based ona case study of a single community and its school, the author argues that these characteristicsare becoming the first victims of an everincreasing technological rationality of educational institutions, but that the process may be reversed by practices of communicative discourse, and by a revitalization of critical participation in the practical and performing arts. An underlying assumption is that successful school leaders consider the interests of adults as well as those of students, and that they, together with other community members, engage in decision-making on socioeconomic and cultural ends as well as means.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.079
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Management & AdministrationSame topicCritical and Liberation PedagogyFrench-language works237,207