Constructing strategic organization: A field whose time has come
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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 it