MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771338288 · doi:10.1108/sbr-02-2017-0011

Sanctioning, qualifying, and manipulating: dramatic phases in president’s letters

2017· article· en· W2771338288 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Webb, André Richelieu

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety and Business Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyOriginalityAgency (philosophy)NarrativeValue (mathematics)Meaning (existential)Sample (material)SociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceQualitative researchSocial scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to better understand the management of accounts that sport for development (SFD) agencies provide. Design/methodology/approach A recognized methodology for analyzing narratives is mobilized to collate a longitudinal sample of one agency’s president’s letters. Using Greimas’s actantial model as a framework, this study analyzes role allocation through president’s letters. Findings The analysis of empirical data demonstrates the managerial functions of sanctioning and qualifying organizational performance and manipulating current, as well as potential, partners into becoming actors in the studied network. Originality/value This study submits that a new typology and associated roles are needed for one categories of actors. Redefining the destinator category of actors previously used in management literature with a new sender label is proposed. Adjusting our view on the roles given to actors in this category demonstrates new meaning and intent embedded in president’s letters.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety and Business ReviewSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207