Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management consulting occupation has experienced tremendous growth in Canada since the Second World War, especially within the public service. Existing research on management consulting in Canada has focused on explaining the increased use of management consulting services by Canadian governments. While existing studies highlight the provision of expertise as one reason for the increased use of consultants by the public sector, little attention has been paid to the perceptions of consultants and, in particular, what they mean when they self-identify as experts. Since management consulting is not a “true profession” in the sense that it does not have a cohesive code of conduct or set of standards, a plurality of perspectives and position-taking may be discovered through French pragmatic sociology. This thesis uses the orders of worth framework to explore how management consultants across four provinces – British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia – conceptualize expertise and attach meaning to their work. The results of this study suggest that the concept of expertise is fluid and how it is defined depends heavily upon the nature of the consulting project. Additionally, results indicate that varying levels of enjoyment are attached to consulting projects, depending upon the type of expertise that is required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".