Contribuições para a teoria do CCO na perspectiva da comunicação integral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay presents a synthesis of the main postulates of the three schools of organizational thinking known as the Theory of the Communicative Constitution of Organizations (CCO), a vanguard proposal that has drawn strength from three nuclei or groups of researchers better known as the School of Montreal, the School of Four Communication Flows and the School of Social Systems. The work makes critical comments about the very conception of Language in the School of Montreal, non-human agents in the contributions of the perspective of Social Systems, and the very conception of communication in the three. It emphasizes the richness of the contribution on the relationship between organization and communication that these theories make. The central argument of the paper is that while it is possible to highlight the CCO as a novel contribution to the nature of organizations and their interactions with communication, then there are factors that are necessary components for the creation and maintenance of organizations, this perspective of the CCO does not take into account such as: external factors such as legal, cultural, the power with which the organization originates; internal factors such as economic capital, human capital and technological components. He concludes the paper by pointing out some guidelines for taking the CCO's proposals from the proposal of the Comprehensive Communication for Organizations (CIO). This points the way towards greater research efforts required to strengthen the CCO itself.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".