MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022753004 · doi:10.33166/acdmhr.2020.02.005

Understanding Change: A Critical Review of Literature

2020· review· en· W3022753004 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange management (ITSM)Organizational changeValue (mathematics)Work (physics)Business modelKnowledge managementSociologyManagement sciencePolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic relationsManagementBusinessEngineeringMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current paper has attempted to shed light on the concept of change and the prominent models that can be of value for managerial authorities to bring transformation in their business. the paper sheds light on change which is refers to the continuous modifications that an organisation or individuals make to deal with adjustments in any matter. The paper highlights that although there are no static models of change yet still, some prominent perspectives and frameworks can be considered for top management and decision making bodies to make sense of the concept of change and work on developing policies and practices to ensure they remain competitive. The article discusses the idea forwarded by Lewin for change which catered to three stages at the first place. Following to this, the article discusses Burke and Litwin model of change that has been widely considered for business sectors for change management. Towards the end, the article discusses the ADKAR model of change. Taken together, the article provides crucial information for change enthusiasts to get firsthand information to start learning about how organizations can bring about objective changes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.541
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HRSame topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207