MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016221057 · doi:10.1080/19186444.2020.1746598

Workplace issues in the context of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: Mental health problems, cannabis and the division of labour

2020· article· en· W3016221057 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nada Elnahla, Ruth McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Corporation Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Division of labourContext (archaeology)NarrativeSociologyValue (mathematics)Mental healthCannabisPlan (archaeology)Public relationsEpistemologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePsychiatryLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the distinctive value of literature inside organisational theory, and how using narratives as possible future scenarios can help both academics and managers consider the consequences of mental health problems, the (mis)use of drugs, and the division of labour in the workplace. The paper adopts Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World for this purpose. Another contribution of the paper is providing a model that offers managers a step-by-step action plan of how to use literary texts to study sensitive workplace issues, generating new knowledge which would ultimately help them to envision ways to act appropriately and develop future strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Corporation ReviewSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207