Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal something about a turn that occurred in Canadian management from the 1960s to 1980s through an empirical analysis of three different archival research sources. It considers three sub-themes that collectively help to reveal empirically major changes in management identity that happened in Canada from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Design/methodology/approach This paper is divided into several sub-sections and uses social history methodology, although it is principally intended to be an empirical analysis. The rationale for selecting three specific sources and how they relate to each other is discussed. The sources are different in terms of form and periodization, yet they collectively provide coherent insights into the management experience in Canada from the 1960s to 1980s. Findings As a methodology paper, this analysis reveals the unique nature of archival sources that are not often found in management history and also shows how they relate to each other. Research limitations/implications This paper may seem specific to Canadian management history, but it is intended to present sources and methodology that are applicable regardless of locale. Originality/value This paper seeks to present the value of using new methodologies in the study of management history and, while building on existing literature, it helps to reveal the complexity of the management experience in important decades in post-Second World War Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".