The construction of discourses on management techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research is a contribution to the analysis of the construction processes of consultants' discourses on management methods included in their service portfolios. This is an exploratory study, based on the way a consultancy firm explain 5 steps - a method co- designed by the consultancy firm's director and the Information Systems Direction of a major industrial group - with three ideal-typical interlocutors: the grandmother, the knowledgeable friend, the prospect. Discourses were collected at a particular point in time of the method's development: this collection has been designed and implemented with and within a major company, but it is still poorly known and has not been diffused to other customers: the discourses on the method are still being prepared. Analysis shows that discourses held enable to outline a minimal description of the method's contents and its main characteristics presented as advantages. The utterances are globally expositive. The protocol also enables to highlight the discourses' specificities on the basis of the interlocutors' figures. The discourse to the grandmother figure is general and descriptive, on an educational tone. The discourse to the friend figure becomes more precise with a specialised vocabulary on the management fundamentals but especially on the method specific technical elements. The discourse to the prospect figure integrates a dialogic dimension. It takes on an educational and promissive tone referring to the management fundamentals rather than to the technical vocabulary of the method. Observation reveals that the discourse to the prospect is simpler than to a friend, whereas more specialised vocabulary could have been expected when addressing a prospect. The friend could then stand as the implicit central interlocutor in the development phase of a method.
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 | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".