MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Editorial Advisory Board

2016· other· en· W4246090347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingLibrary scienceManagementSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citation (2016), "Editorial Advisory Board", Towards A Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics And Logics Across The Organizational Fields Of Health Care And Higher Education (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 45), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. xiii-xiv. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20150000045002 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited SERIES EDITORS Michael Lounsbury Associate Dean of Research Thornton A. Graham Chair University of Alberta School of Business, Alberta, Canada ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS Howard E. Aldrich University of North Carolina, USA Stephen R. Barley Stanford University, USA Nicole Biggart University of California at Davis, USA Elisabeth S. Clemens University of Chicago, USA Jeannette Colyvas Northwestern University, USA Barbara Czarniawska Göteborg University, Sweden Gerald F. Davis University of Michigan, USA Marie-Laure Djelic ESSEC Business School, France Frank R. Dobbin Harvard University, USA Royston Greenwood University of Alberta, Canada Mauro Guillen The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA Paul M. Hirsch Northwestern University, USA Brayden G. King Northwestern University, USA Renate Meyer Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria Mark Mizruchi University of Michigan, USA Walter W. Powell Stanford University, USA Hayagreeva Rao Stanford University, USA Marc Schneiberg Reed College, USA W. Richard Scott Stanford University, USA Haridimos Tsoukas ALBA, Greece Book Chapters Towards a Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics and Logics Across the Organizational Fields of Health Care and Higher Education Research in the Sociology of Organizations Towards a Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics and Logics Across the Organizational Fields of Health Care and Higher Education Copyright Page List of Contributors Editorial Advisory Board Part I: Setting the Stage Foreword The Value in Comparing Organizational Fields and Forms Part II: Field Level Dynamics Higher Education and Health Organizational Fields in the Age of “World Class” and “Best Practices” Reformed or Deformed? The Unending Renewal of the Public University between Unintended Consequences and Unexpected Challenges Comparing the Institutionalisation of Performance Management Schemes for Hospitals in Denmark, Germany and England Part III: Institutional Logics In Health Care And Higher Education Strategic and Enforced Logics Hybridization: An Agency View within French Hospitals and Universities Handling Different Institutional Logics in the Public Sector: Comparing Management in Norwegian Universities and Hospitals Decision-Making Power and Institutional Logic in Higher Education Institutions: A Comparative Analysis of European Universities The Quest for Promoting Integrated Care in the Scandinavian Countries – Recent Reforms, Possibilities and Problems Part IV: Resistance and Transformation Institutional Isomorphism and Quality Management: Comparing Hospitals and Universities Transforming Professional Bureaucracies in Hospitals and Higher Education Institutions Managerialism in Complex Systems: Experiences of Strategic Planning in Non-Profit Hospitals Viva Solidarity!: Framing Repertoire of Emerging Social Movements against Institutional Change in Two Turkish Universities

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0210.009
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2630.251

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManagement and Organizational Studies→French-language works237,207→