MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158753444 · doi:10.1177/1086026606294957

Building the Future by Looking to the Past

2006· article· en· W2158753444 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization & Environment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Organizational theoryTest (biology)SociologyEnvironmental researchPsychologyPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceManagementComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations and environment (O&E) researchers focus on either organizational outcomes or environmental outcomes. In this article, the authors argue that these are significantly different approaches to O&E research. The first aims to contribute to organization theory and performance; the latter aims to improve environmental performance. With a starting position that most research published in influential general management journals is of the organizational outcomes variety, the authors reviewed O&E research published from 1995 to 2005 to test this theory. The authors found, in fact, that most research is directed at environmental outcomes. This finding suggests that the most influential general management journals are receptive to environmental research that does not fit neatly into the organizational boxes. Yet, the authors also find that there is room for O&E research to have considerably more impact than there has been so far. This is a call for more high-quality O&E research in general management journals.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.156 · 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