MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136355225 · doi:10.1177/1086026621998744

Organizational Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Internalizing Lifecycle Management

2021· article· en· W3136355225 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization & Environment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessOrganizational learningProcess (computing)Product lifecycleEnvironmental resource managementNew product developmentComputer scienceMarketingEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing a substantial environmental strategy that addresses all phases of the product lifecycle is a complex and demanding challenge that most organizations fail to convincingly overcome. Based on a case study of five frontrunner companies located in Italy and Norway, this study explores the factors that promote, or hinder, the learning process underlying the implementation of substantial measures for lifecycle management and how this can contribute to further internalizing environmental sustainability throughout the organization. The article contributes to the literature on organizational learning and environmental sustainability by showing, from a dynamic perspective, the enablers of organizational learning required for internalizing lifecycle management in organizations. A new framework for environmental sustainability based on the 4Is (intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing) organizational learning model is put forward in line with the concept of lifecycle management. Managerial implications are also discussed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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