Bibliographic record
Abstract
While prior work suggests that ambiguous frames may be helpful in promoting institutional change, we still know little about their impact on field-level change. Drawing on contemporary accounts of organizational fields as structured around issues, we investigate the rise of responsible investment in South Africa, examining how proponents’ use of frame ambiguity drew in a broader range of field actors but ultimately stalled the institutionalization of new meanings and practices in the investment field. Our study suggests that to promote change, proponents should seek a balance between enough ambiguity to invite participation, and enough specification to regulate the understanding of the problem, promote the experimentation of new practices, and clarify the impetus for action. We also contribute to the conceptualization of field settlement by distinguishing among rhetorical, incremental, and disruptive field settlements, highlighting that field settlements are not always indicators of further substantive change processes in a field.
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 | 0.047 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".