Constructing strategic organization: A field whose time has come
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Strategic Organization—SO!—turns 20, we reflect on the inspirations and aspirations behind the journal’s creation, contemplate its accomplishments, and share some themes it might amplify in the future. We find much to celebrate, as well as things to contemplate. The journal has accomplished a great deal during its adolescent and teen years. Our original inspirations and aspirations, updated by our successors, have positioned the journal as the forum for integrative research on strategy and organizations that is pursued rigorously and in an open-minded way. While we think our original vision for Strategic Organization has largely been realized—both for the journal and the field—we see interesting and important openings for new strategic organization research initiatives in areas including novel designs, emerging socio-political processes, and widening societal effects; initiatives we believe will benefit from research approaches that emphasize template eclecticism and careful detective work.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".