From Animosity to Affinity: The Interplay of Competing Logics and Interdependence in Cross‐Sector Partnerships
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
Abstract Drawing on and extending institutional logics and resource dependence theories, this paper posits that for cross‐sector partnerships to survive, organizations need to share compatible institutional logics, but depend less on each other's resources. Asymmetrical cross‐sector partnerships may lead to a breakup if organizations are forced to operate under incompatible institutional logics. The findings of this study show that the challenges posed by incompatible logics of partners could be mitigated by the degree of resource interdependence between organizations. Capturing the effects of context and transactions on the actors’ strategic behaviour, the findings, based on a dataset of project‐level partnership ties between 1312 organizations in the carbon‐offset market, support these hypotheses. The paper concludes by discussing implications of organizations' responses to keep acting under or reinterpreting existing institutional logics in asymmetrical cross‐sector relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it