Turning belief into action: An exploratory case study applying the building belief model to an anonymous college in Ontario
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study tests a new model for corporate communications called Building Belief, which urges a firm to constantly live up to its stated character and values in order to motivate stakeholders to identify, support and promote them. Building on published theories and best practices related to culture, reputation, trust, relationship management, self-determination, employee engagement, leadership, storytelling and social media, an instrument was developed to test the model at an anonymous Ontario college. Its stakeholders were found to lack a strong sense of shared values and shared identity with the organization, but they were found to have the potential to act as ambassadors. The study recommends several measures to strengthen people’s relationships with the institution, deepen levels of engagement and motivate them to advocacy. These include the co-creation of a culture code, involving employees in decision making and using stories that centre on student success to empower early influencers. ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it