Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2017), "Index", Höllerer, M.A., Daudigeos, T. and Jancsary, D. (Ed.) Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 54B), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 243-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2017000054B009 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited INDEX Aboriginal people, 106–107, 124, 126, 134 Aboriginals, 123–124, 126, 130–131 Accounts idealized, 4 mythical, 4 Aestheticism, 19, 31 Aesthetics, 14, 61, 84, 90, 94, 236 Ambiguity, 9, 31, 49, 105 Analysis archeological, 173 field-survey, 74 historical, 37, 65, 78, 158, 239 Archeological approach, 158 Architectural styles, 205, 208–209, 213, 218, 221–222, 230 Brand distinctive, 168 luxury, 183, 186 premium, 188 regional collective, 44 Branding campaign, 83, 87, 89, 93 cultural, 98 dynamics, 93 employer, 149, 175–176 experts, 79 Canadian oil, 103, 114, 127 City identity anchors, 228 constructing, 203, 206–207, 210, 229 construction, 204, 229 distinctive, 207 encode, 209 holistic, 228 shaping, 229 shared, 207 Communication contemporary, 35, 140, 176, 241 corporate, 169 digital, 41 multi-modal, 235 online, 103 organizational, 172, 236–237 political, 177 simultaneous, 9 visual mode of, 5–6, 32–33 Communities avant-garde, 28 local, 39 merchant, 58 pre-modern, 40 Community members elite, 63 high-status, 45 Community organizations interstitial, 39, 60 merchant, 58–60 networked, 43 Construction industry, 21 Construction practices, 6 Contradictions institutional, 200 Critics architectural, 210, 212, 218 newspaper, 213, 223 professional, 212 wine, 59 Cultural accounts, 4, 9 Cultural critics, 207, 212 Cultural issues, 240 Cultural toolkits, 78, 182, 190, 197 Culture, corporate, 237 De-legitimation, 101–102, 104, 127, 133–134, 136 Discourse intertextual, 117 managerial, 138 silenced, 210 visual, 78 Employees aboriginal, 124 committed, 167–168 Employer brand, 146, 149, 151–153, 172 Energy big, 114 renewable, 119 sources, 119, 131 Environment activism, 116 physical, 200 plural, 76 rhetorical, 103 Field-level heterogeneity, 73–76, 90, 95 Field-level variety, 75–78 Globalization, 139 Heritage architectural, 214 historical, 197 national, 190 organizational, 89 Heterogeneity, 72–75, 79–80, 93–96, 183 Historicity and imprinting, 74–75 Human rights, 123, 125 violations, 126, 132, 186 Identity claims media, 180–181 and multimodality, 181–184 multiple modes, 180–181 social media, 194 Innovation institutionalization of, 236 and tradition, 236 Legitimation dynamics, 104–106 Multimodality, 8–10, 61–62 Tradition and innovation, 236 Visual communication, 8–10 Book Chapters Prelims Section 4: Multimodal Perspectives on Institutional Persistence and Change Multimodal Construction of a Rational Myth: Industrialization of the French Building Sector in the Period from 1945 to 1970 CRU, GLUE, and Status: How Wine Labels Helped Ennoble Bordeaux Where History, Visuality, and Identity Meet: Institutional Paths to Visual Diversity among Organizations Dirty Oil or Ethical Oil? Visual Rhetoric in Legitimation Struggles Section 5: The Multimodal Construction of Identities Companies on the Runway: Fashion Companies’ Multimodal Presentation of their Organizational Identity in Job Advertisements Message in a Bottle: Multiple Modes and Multiple Media in Market Identity Claims The Architecture of City Identities: A Multimodal Study of Barcelona and Boston Multimodality in Organization Studies: Afterword Index
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.783 | 0.807 |
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".