Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the interplay between metaphor and metonymy in the construction of organization theory. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between the use of metaphor as a way of thinking and a way of being, and the specific metaphors that are produced through this process. It suggests that too much emphasis is often placed on metaphors as abstracted epistemological constructs rather than on understanding the more dynamic and changing role they play in the interactive modes of engagement through which people seek to grasp, concretize and act on their world. Developing the approach and ideas first presented in Images of Organization, this article suggests that a flexible use of metaphor can help us engage and understand the multidimensional and paradoxical nature of organizational life and help us to deal with the emerging issues shaping the contemporary socio-political–technological–organizational landscape. The article suggests that because most current approaches in social science are overly-focused on the study of abstracted metonymical constructs, they will have difficulty dealing with the multidimensional complexity we now face.
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 | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".