MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898298345 · doi:10.1177/1476127018804796

Why should we bother? What are configurations for?

2018· article· en· W2898298345 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Organization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisBlock (permutation group theory)Qualitative comparative analysisManagement scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main thrust of the essays by Greckhamer et al., Täuscher, and Miller is about methodologies for studying configurations, such as qualitative comparative analysis, clustering, and systems dynamics. My aim is to ask why we should be interested in configurations at all. I consider three approaches to configurational analysis: first, configurations as a basic building block in a systematic theory of organizational structure and systems; second, configurations as a generic classification tool, emphasizing that all theory should be looking for enduring patterning in elements of all kinds associated with different organizational issues and different levels of analysis; third, the use of a configurational approach to consider the properties of individual cases. I also have some observations about the future of configurational analysis.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.202 · 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