Corporate Culture in Russia: History, Progress, Problems and Prospects
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
Research on corporate culture is a trend that in essence reflects the problems and risks that exist in Russian society as well as corporations. Authors have three goals: first goal is to make a short analysis after investigations, that are dedicated to the condition of Russian culture; the second goal is an analysis of risks and problems of facing the Russian state and corporations caused by the world community’s transition to a new technological environment; and the third goal is the explication of development prospects of Russian corporate culture. There are many possible differentiated approaches and methods possible for a study of a cultural phenomena. The practical aspects of the corporate culture formation are considered on the example of the finance-bank structure “Sberbank”. The most productive approach is interdisciplinary research method. The research result is that the Russian scientific community has two main approaches (related to the corporate culture theme): rational and value approach and the term “corporate culture” used in the scientific literature as adequate for definitions “organizational” and “business” culture. This is identical to western research tradition, in general. The “industrial” development level of Russian corporate culture does not correspond to the meanings and values of the sixth technological paradigm, which is the main problem and the original “risk field” for optimization of corporate culture in Russia. The authors consider the organizational forms in which corporate culture develops and the wide historic experience of professional education had been accumulated earlier and corresponded to the pragmatism as the megatrend of education development that is the positive factor.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it