Situated Institutions: The Role of Place, Space and Embeddedness in Institutional Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place and space have long been the focus of studies of organizations (e.g. Bucher & Langley, 2016; Elsbach, 2004; Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Tuan, 1974), but only recently were explored, mostly indirectly, in institutional studies. For example, recent work examines the role of place in institutional change on the organizational (Kellogg, 2009), community (Marquis & Battilana, 2009), field (Lounsbury, 2007; Ziestma & Lawrence, 2010), or societal levels (Mair, 2012). Recent studies also explore the role of place in institutional work (Lawrence & Dover, 2015) and in reviving tradition (Dacin, Nasra, & Leithwood, 2009). Our symposium explores the situatedness of institutional dynamics. Through the presentation of four empirical studies, we will discuss how place impacts the salience, resonance, strength and scope of institutions. With an introduction to place at the beginning, discussant’s comments and a directed Q&A with audience participation at the end, this symposium will also explore the value of place to broader discussions about institutions. Exactly Your Grandpas Shoes: Historical Legacies of Place in Revitalizing a Decimated Industry Presenter: Sunasir Dutta; U. of Minnesota Presenter: Michael Park; U. of Minnesota Know Thy Place: Location and Imagined Communities in Institutional Field Dynamics Presenter: Tammar B. Zilber; Hebrew U. of Jerusalem Institutional Vigilantism and the Protection of Place Presenter: Brett Crawford; Purdue U. Presenter: Tina Dacin; Queen's U. Maintaining Places of Social Inclusion: Ebola and the Emergency Department Presenter: April L. Wright; U. of Queensland Presenter: Alan D. Meyer; U. of Oregon Presenter: Trish Reay; U. of Alberta
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".