MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950420169 · doi:10.1177/1056492619853365

Theorizing About an AOM President’s Response to Crisis and the Counter Responses It Evoked

2019· article· en· W2950420169 on OpenAlexaff
Jean M. Bartunek, Kimberly D. Elsbach, Emma Bell, Costas Markides, M. Christianson, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Michael G. Pratt, Jacqueline A‐M. Coyle‐Shapiro, Mary Ann Glynn, William Ocasio, M. Diane Burton, Marc J. Ventresca

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Inquiry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensemakingBureaucracyPower (physics)Field (mathematics)Public relationsSociologyOrganizational theorySet (abstract data type)Political scienceManagementLawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational crises have often stimulated scholarly theorizing that has been productive for our field. Rarely, however, are there opportunities to theorize regarding crises that happen in our own professional associations. A crisis experienced by Professor Anita McGahan when she was the President of the Academy of Management, described in an accompanying article, has presented such an opportunity. In this set of nine brief reflections, several scholars have considered how McGahan’s actions with regard to that crisis can be understood conceptually and how they may stimulate development of previously established conceptual perspectives. These reflections make evident that McGahan’s actions cannot be appreciated without recognition of the complex dilemmas to which she was responding. These dilemmas include issues of trustworthy leadership, gendered power, leader voice, sensemaking and learning, organizational identities, psychological contracts, institutional leadership, and “good bureaucracy.”

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)0.011
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management InquirySame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207