Organizational Social Relations and Social Embedding: A Pluralistic Review
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
To date there has been little systematic organization of the extensive literature on the processes and mechanisms shaping social relationships in and around organizations. In an analysis of 372 studies from this literature, we identified a broad spectrum of assumptions, priorities, and relational issues emerging from multiple disciplines and theoretical lenses. Three dominant perspectives surfaced in our study: economic, organizational, and interactionist. Each manifests distinctive ontologies of social relations, actors, relational processes, and modes of social embedding. The rich variety of relationships and causal patterns discovered characterizes more fully these perspectives, suggesting opportunities for further research within each, and a wider range of conceptual options to target relational paradigms toward different types of organizations, problems, and levels of analysis. It also brings to light the pluralistic nature of social relations in organizational contexts and the processes by which they become embedded.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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