Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine how residues of ancient images have influenced one’s perspectives on management. Increased attention has been given to the absence of bodies within discussions of organisations; however, far less attention has been given to the interplay between organisations and images of one’s body. Design/methodology/approach By comparing the perceived benefits of studying sport (e.g. passion, embodiment and action) with the tensions that existed between athletic performances and an ancient image of the body, this paper draws attention to residuals that exist within discussions of organisations. Findings In a context where an image of the body encouraged moderation, the appropriate levels of heat, and the development of an immaterial and eternal soul, athletic performances, which were physical, extreme, focused on the body and generated excessive heat, were often problematic. These problems are then examined within the literature discussing current issues in management. Research limitations/implications Sport has the potential to facilitate one’s understanding of issues that management, consistent with ancient images of the body, has traditionally neglected (i.e. extremes, passion) and the possibilities of using embodied cognition to enhance our understandings of performance, teams and leading are discussed. Social implications As scientists become increasingly concerned about the long-term consequences of the reduced opportunities for cultural programs (sport, art, music, etc.), revisiting one’s assumptions is increasingly important, especially as athletics and philosophy once shared the same physical space. Originality/value By describing how residues from historical images of the body have influenced the thinking about organizing, this paper highlights the connection between the social and the biological and demonstrates how vestiges from the past influence contemporary discussions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".