The 'rational' organization reconsidered: an exploration of some of the organizational implications of self-organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues for an enlargement of our conception of rationality to include forms of reasoning, intelligence, and cognition that are communicatively, rather than discursively, based. To defend the thesis that understanding emerges in the collective interactive processes of practically situated conversation, as well as in individual thought, this paper examines the theoretical literature devoted to self-organizing systems and the empirical literature that describes how distributed intelligence is developed by groups in materially embedded contexts of work. It then explores the phenomenon of emergence of organization as an actor, capable of expressing an intention and participating in a dialogue involving other organizations. It explains this phenomenon of the emerging organizational self as a logical implication of the theory of self-organizing, which predicates ‘self-ness’ as an effect of the coupling of an autopoietic system to an observer. Whereas this has tended to be interpreted in intersubjective contexts of communication, it can also be applied to organizational communication. Implications of such a revision of perspective are briefly considered, including a critique of current interpretations of dialogics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".