Vigilant resilience: the possibilities for renewal through preparedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Post-crisis renewal discourse (Ulmer et al. , 2007) is one form of communication that stakeholders may use as they attempt to organize for resilience. The purpose of this paper propose extending Discourse of Renewal Theory to explain how it could enact a different kind of resilience than scholars typically consider. Organizational resilience strategies often focus on the recovery or prevention stages of crisis management. Under conditions of persistent threat, it would be more productive for renewal discourse to emphasize greater preparedness. Design/methodology/approach To illustrate the need for this kind of theorizing, the author analyzes a case study that follows the public relations efforts of Canadian energy company Enbridge, Inc., in the aftermath of the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill. Findings By the criteria of Discourse of Renewal Theory, Enbridge attempted a renewal strategy, but it failed. By other criteria, however, it succeeded: it created the opportunity for richer dialogue among stakeholders about their interdependence and their competing interests. Originality/value By considering how elements of the resilience process may vary, this paper offers resources for more nuanced theory-building and theory-testing related to organizational and system-level resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".