MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Emergence of Hybrid Collective Action

2018· article· en· W2876964450 on OpenAlexaff
Hadi Chapardar, Pratima Bansal

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective actionAction (physics)SalientProcess (computing)NormativeStakeholderVoluntary actionBusinessProduct (mathematics)Industrial organizationLaw and economicsEconomicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceAgency (philosophy)SociologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business can take voluntary collective actions and regulate itself to meet stakeholder expectations regarding natural environment. Such voluntary actions often pre-empt regulation. But, what happens when firms avoid adopting a voluntary action that is expected to be taken collectively? We conduct a longitudinal process study on post- consumer product management, where policy-makers respond to business’s avoidance by imposing a ‘mandated collective action,’ which ultimately transitions into a ‘hybrid collective action.’ This hybrid form is co-regulated by industry and regulators and can solve the problems of free-riding and performance, commonplace in conventional voluntary collective actions and industry self- regulatory regimes. The hybrid model involves both collective action and policy, which have been generally viewed as parallel alternatives. However, marriage of the two alternatives creates unprecedented dynamics. Our grounded theorizing allows us to explore the dynamics and the salient concepts associated with the hybrid model. We suggest that hybrid collective action is an apt institutional alternative when collective action is needed, but normative institutions are not in place to shape and manage it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207