Unpacking “Sense of Place” and “Place-making” in Organization Studies: A Toolkit for Place-sensitive Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in organizational scholarship in the role of place. To support these developments, we offer a framework for place-sensitive research in organizational analysis. The notion of place refers to a unique location, endowed with a material from and a socially constructed set of meanings. In line with the phenomenology of place, our framework first distinguishes between two ontologies of place: place as experience—through which people develop a sense of place—and place as practice—through which people engage collectively to make places. Second, our framework distinguishes between three temporal orientations in relation to place: past, present, and future. We then draw from research in geography to reflect on two under-explored methodological toolkits to collect data on and analyze place as experience and place as practice in organization studies: walking interviews, and geographical videography.
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 | 0.062 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.147 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".