Del dicho al hecho: una discusión acerca del devenir histórico de las teorías administrativas y su correspondencia con las prácticas empresariales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este articulo se deriva de la formulacion de la linea de investigacion en Informacion, Control y Gestion en su eje de identidad epistemico-disciplinal. Se realiza una reflexion acerca de la evolucion del pensamiento administrativo y para ello se efectua un recorrido por los autores representantes de las diferentes escuelas de pensamiento administrativo: Clasicas, Neoclasica, Relaciones Humanas y Pensamiento Administrativo de Montreal, develando como cada una de ellas inserta el papel del ser humano en el desarrollo de las actividades empresariales y como este se convierte en un aspecto clave de controversia. Finalmente, se concluye que el rescate de los valores culturales, eticos y sociales de los seres humanos no pasa de ser una retorica, que no trasciende la realidad empresarial, y se dejan algunos elementos para tratar en trabajos futuros ABSTRACT This article derives from the formulation of the line of investigation on Information, Management and Control in its axis of disciplinal epistemic identity. A reflection is made about the evolution of the administrative thought, for which is done a going through the most representative authors of the different schools of administrative thought: Classic, neoclassic, Human Relations and Administrative Thought of Montreal, permiting to reveal how each of these ideas insert the human being’s role in the development of the enterprise activities and how this one becomes a key aspect of controversy. Finally, the conclusion is that the rescue of the cultural, ethical and social values of the human beings does not happen to be more than a rhetoric, that does not extend the enterprise´s reality, and some elements are left to be considered in future works.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".