MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770613235 · doi:10.1108/ijotb-06-04-2003-b001

Designing the learning organization as an information-processing system: some design principles from the systems paradigm and cybernetics

2003· article· en· W2770613235 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

VenueInternational Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberneticsComputer scienceInformation processingLearning organizationOrganizational architectureContingencyKnowledge managementInformation processing theoryInformation systemContingency theoryOrganizational theoryManagement scienceCognitive scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringManagementPsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The major principles for designing the learning organization as an information processing system are derived from systems paradigm, information theory, and cybernetics. The need for these principles is demonstrated by the information pathologies in the classical and contingency design of the organization and information imperatives for designing the organization for the information age. An information processing model that extends the classical and contingency principles for organizational design is developed to provide a new organization model for effective learning. The effectiveness of the learning organization can be partially attributed to the design of the organization as an information processing system. The organization learns, adapts, and responds to innovative change through its information subsystems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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