MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574331141 · doi:10.1111/joms.12256

Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations

2017· article· en· W2574331141 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

VenueJournal of Management Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary spanningEmbeddednessDiversity (politics)Boundary (topology)BusinessFunction (biology)Affect (linguistics)Economic geographyDual (grammatical number)Knowledge managementGlobalizationIndustrial organizationProcess managementPublic relationsComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global organizations are inherently complex. The spatial dispersion of activities results in organizational subunits becoming embedded in local host‐country contexts that differ from their parents’ home country contexts. These subunits are also embedded in their parents’ corporate networks, causing them to differ from their locally embedded peers. The dual embeddedness and associated complexities create complex and often implicit boundaries. In addition, the contextual and operational diversity that affects the boundaries in global organizations are continually changing. Hence managing and coordinating across different inter‐ and intra‐organizational boundaries has emerged as an important capability for the success of global organizations. So far, we have a limited understanding of the factors that affect the complexity and effectiveness of the boundary spanning function. In this article, we focus on clarifying these key issues and propose a model for effective boundary spanning in global organizations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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