David Defeating Goliath: Institutional Work of A Marginalized Actor Within Institutional Complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our study is to answer the following research question: how can marginal actors with limited resources and power achieve institutional change by creating and promoting their logic? Drawing on a historical-longitudinal case study of one of the most intense environmental controversy between an Indigenous Nation, and Hydro-Québec, in James Bay, northern Quebec, this paper makes three contributions to current discussions of institutional change and logics. First, we identify three strategic mechanisms - capacity-building, field expansion and changing own logic - through which marginalized actors are able to initiate and maintain the need for change despite continuous pressure from a strong, resourceful and legitimate competing logic. Second, responding to several calls for research on the unintended outcomes of the institutional work achieved, our research advances the conceptualization of institutional work accumulation. Third, our study shows that actors and the logics they convey are not static; rather, they are dynamic and evolve during the process while actors negotiate issues of competing logics and complexity.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".