MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159208166 · doi:10.1177/23409444211012414

Theory, explanation, and understanding in management research

2021· article· en· W3159208166 on OpenAlex
Jean‐Etienne Joullié, Anthony M. Gould

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

VenueBRQ Business Research Quarterly · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmManagement theoryField (mathematics)EpistemologyKnowledge managementManagement scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory production has been a central focus of management research for decades, mostly because theory legitimizes both management research and, through its application, management practice as professional endeavors. However, such an emphasis on theory glosses over one of its constraining and particularized roles in scientific explanation, namely that theory codifies predictive knowledge. Committing to a ‘traditional’ or ‘critical’ understanding of theory thus amounts to embracing the view that prediction is achievable within a circumscribed field of study. Such an embrace is non-controversial in natural science. However, within the realm of management studies, it necessitates and smuggles in a strawman view of human existence, one which does not accommodate freedom and responsibility. This limitation of management theory explains its inadequate utility. This article argues that alternative avenues for management research exist. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M10

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.204 · 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