HISTÓRIA, MEMÓRIA E PASSADO EM ESTUDOS ORGANIZACIONAIS E DE GESTÃO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goals for this editorial are threefold. First, we contextualize the growing interest of management \nand organization scholars in matters of history, memory, and the past. Despite the increasing \nnumber of historical organization studies, functionalism and functional-interpretivism remain \nthe dominant approaches in management and organization studies (MOS). Moreover, because \nEuropean and North American scholars are overrepresented in the literature, analysis of the historical \nimpact of global trade and multinational organizations on the relationship between the global \nNorth and South is limited. Second, we map the literature that connects history, memory, and the \npast to organizations and organizing. We provide an overview of MOS scholars’ initial efforts to \ndevelop humanist approaches to organization studies and discuss the role history plays in informing \nepistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical conversations in the field. Third, we \nhighlight specifically how the articles in this special issue contribute to the body of historical \norganization literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".