MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Organizational Fields as Mnemonic Communities

2017· article· en· W2765425433 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

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicConstruct (python library)Meaning (existential)Bridging (networking)Field (mathematics)EpistemologyCognitionCognitive scienceCollective memoryPsychologySociologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of an organizational field has become influential in management theory. Despite its prominence, the construct has defied precise definition. Most definitions emphasize either structural elements of fields (fields as place) or their ideational elements (fields as meaning systems). Missing from this analysis is an appreciation of how meaning is given to structural relations. Our core thesis is that memory is a critically important bridging construct through which meaning is given to place. We demonstrate that organizational fields are historical accretions of shared memories that are reproduced and become objectified over time until they acquire the status of ontological reality. We introduce the term mnemonic fields to capture the understanding that fields are cognitions of network relations that are created, maintained and changed through processes of collective memory.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.223 · 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