MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364692954 · doi:10.1177/1086026616650437

Big Data, Management, and Sustainability

2016· article· en· W2364692954 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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataSustainabilityAffordanceSustainability organizationsKnowledge managementBusinessProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Process managementComputer scienceData scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We contend that big data and management for sustainability are very good bedfellows, in that many of the affordances big data provides are naturally aligned with sustainability concerns (e.g., multidimensional nature, collective actions, smart allocation of resources, efficiency priority). Notwithstanding this promising stepping off point, and the enticing analytical opportunities that an abundance of data will generate, we provide some reflections on big data and the most promising avenues of research it might inspire in the field of management and sustainability. In the first part of our essay, we explore what managers can do with big data to reinforce organizational sustainability and how different operational, strategic, and corporate activities are affected in this process. In the second part, we focus on what big data allows researchers to explore and examine, ranging from sustainability job descriptions through environmental metrics to industry transformation. We conclude by advocating for strong theoretical orientation in research on and with big data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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