Metaphorical Mapping for Sensemaking and Sensebreaking of Stakeholder Relations in Sustainability Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article develops a framework for managerial conceptualization of corporate sustainability–stakeholder relationships (CS-SR) for paradoxical frames. The embedded nature of the business case frame for sustainability and aligned CS-SR, and a lack of insight into CS-SR for a paradoxical frame, may impede implementing a paradoxical frame for sustainability. Therefore, this article offers an understanding of structural differences in CS-SR in a business case versus a paradoxical frame for sustainability in terms of agency and communion. It then presents conceptual metaphorical mapping as the cognitive mechanism for managerial conceptualization of CS-SR for a paradoxical frame. Identifying nurturant parenting as an apt metaphorical domain with a conceptually similar relational structure to CS-SR of the paradoxical frame and dissimilar from the business case frame, it presents a model where juxtaposing nurturant parenting with sustainability enables sensebreaking of CS-SR of the business case frame and sensemaking of CS-SR of the paradoxical frame.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".