Introduction: A Dialog on Stigma Versus Legitimacy, and How They Relate to Organizations and Their Actors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, stigma research has reached an important threshold in management literature. With an increasing number of publications on the topic of stigma and related social evaluations, researchers run the risk of convoluting disparate concepts. At the same time, examining different components of a singular social evaluation can result in unique contributions that might be overlooked if not thoroughly unpacked. This dialogue presents two differing perspectives on the social evaluations of stigma and legitimacy. The authors discuss the merit of examining stigma as its own distinct construct and as a component of moral evaluation. The authors engage previous research to provide insights on the origins, antecedents, outcomes, processes and consequences of stigma from two different perspectives. Finally, established stigma researchers provide insight into the debate, drawing on previous research as well as their own foundational work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it