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
The desire to better understand the micro-behaviors of organizational actors has led to the increased use of video ethnography in management and qualitative research. Video captures detailed interactions and provides opportunities for researchers to link these to broader organizational processes. However, we argue there is a methodological gap. Studies that focus on the detail of the interactions “zoom in.” Others that focus on the interactions in context “zoom out.” But few go further and “zoom with”––that is, incorporate participants’ interpretations of their video-recorded interactions. Our methodological contribution is that zooming with participants enhances research findings, helps to develop theory, and provides new insights for management practice. The article develops this idea by exploring and describing the method and applying it to top management teams, as well as showing how each focus provides different theoretical insights depending on which perspective or combination of perspectives is used. We conclude with the suggestion that a three-pronged approach to video ethnography be taken. The final section of the article discusses the implications for research and highlights the benefits of reflexivity in management practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it