MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901343234 · doi:10.15173/jpc.v5i2.3749

Public relations in strategic management

2018· article· en· W2901343234 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipFunction (biology)Strategic managementPerspective (graphical)Public relationsProcess (computing)BusinessCore (optical fiber)Knowledge managementManagementProcess managementSociologyPolitical scienceMarketingComputer scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes that it is advantageous for organizations’public relations (PR) departments to adopt strategic managementas a core function. A series of theories that have shapedour understanding of organizational strategy were reviewedto identify links to PR practice and scholarship, suggesting PRshould move beyond providing information and assisting inthe implementation of strategy. Instead, PR should facilitatethe ongoing process of becoming ‘strategized’ towards desiredorganizational characteristics. This perspective provides a linkbetween strategy and PR theory, allowing each to bring newthoughts and insights to the other, providing a future researchagenda for PR. Findings also support a resulting pathway perGrunig’s (1992, 2013) desire that PR practitioners be included inthe strategy apex of an organization (Mintzberg, 1979).

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.268 · 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