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
Although the paradox perspective is gaining increasing attention among management scholars, most of us continue to struggle with addressing this challenging topic in the classroom, as it seems out of reach for many students. In this article, we describe a potentially beneficial way to approach paradoxical thinking in management education: teaching the cooperative business model. Cooperatives are user-owned, user-controlled, and user-benefitting enterprises that operate in the world’s most competitive economies and sectors of activity, demonstrating strong resilience in periods of turbulence and crisis. We argue that, despite the absence of the cooperative business model in mainstream management textbooks and curricula, this model can offer a high pedagogical value for management education in that it can foster paradoxical thinking. To support this claim, we first demonstrate how the cooperative business model is characterized by inherent paradoxes that are more salient and inescapable than they might be in conventional corporations, thus generating tension-filled material for student engagement. Second, we share experiential pedagogical tools and suggest potential learning outcomes. Finally, we discuss some practical implications for integrating cooperatives and other alternative organizations in mainstream management education curricula to help develop paradoxical thinking.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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