MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913592346 · doi:10.1080/10632921.2018.1559265

Does Resource Diversity Confer Organizational Autonomy In Arts Organizations? Extending Resource Dependence Theory

2019· article· en· W2913592346 on OpenAlexaff
Peter D. Sherer, Roy Suddaby, Mary Rozsa de Coquet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Arts Management Law and Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource dependence theoryAutonomyKnowledge managementResource (disambiguation)Affect (linguistics)Diversity (politics)Organizational theoryResource-based viewBusinessVariety (cybernetics)PortfolioPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyMicroeconomicsManagementPolitical scienceMarketingEconomicsCompetitive advantage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource dependence theory holds that organizations adopt a variety of strategies to manage their dependence on resources drawn from the external environment. Most research on resource dependence theory, however, has focused on empirical contexts in which the organization is dependent upon a dominant single external source of resources. We have little understanding of which dependencies take priority over others in contexts where multiple critical dependencies co-exist. More importantly, we don't know how different types of dependencies differentially affect organizational autonomy. We address these questions in this study of over six hundred performing arts organizations. Our analysis reveals a powerful configurational effect in which different categories of resources differentially affect organizational action. We also demonstrate how organizations strategically manage their portfolio of resources in an effort to maximize their autonomy.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Arts Management Law and SocietySame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207