What we know and do not know about organizational resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We present a literature review about organizational resilience, with the goal of identifying how organizational resilience is conceptualized and assessed. The two research questions that drive the review are: (1) how is organizational resilience conceptualized? and (2) how is organizational resilience assessed? We answer the first question by analysing organizational resilience definitions and the attributes or characteristics that contribute to develop resilient organizations. We answer the second question by reviewing articles that focus on tools or methods to measure organizational resilience. Although there are three different ways to define organizational resilience, we found common ideas in the definitions. We also found that organizational resilience is considered a property, ability or capability that can be improved over time. However, we did not find consensus about the elements that contribute to improving the level of organizational resilience and how to assess it. Based on the results of the review, we propose a conceptualization of organizational resilience that integrates the three views found in the literature. We also propose a four-level Maturity Model for Organizational Resilience – MMOR. Using this model, the organization can be in one of the following levels based on its ability and capacity to handle disruptive events: fragile, robust, resilient or antifragile.</p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".