Monitoring the Dynamics of Tensions in an Industrial Symbiosis: A Paradox Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrial symbiosis is a means to achieve sustainability at the systemic level. It involves different organizations in mutual exchanges and symbiotic collaborations to develop sustainable innovative solutions. Little is known about the dynamics of the evolution and management of tensions in an industrial symbiosis. This study seeks to fill this gap by answering this question: How do tensions emerge, evolve, and be managed in an industrial symbiosis? Based on the paradox’s perspective, an analytical framework was built to monitor paradoxes in which various tensions coexist. It was applied to the case of an industrial symbiosis that aimed to establish the first forest residue biorefinery in Canada. The main results show that tensions are managed in four phases (tension identification, tension dynamics, paradox strategy, and paradox management). In particular, when a paradox leads to a tension of belonging (legitimacy and allegiance), a proactive “more-than” strategy (developing a new and creative synergy for transcending the paradox by a dynamic and interactive connection between the stakeholders) is needed under contextual factors to integratively manage the paradox and mitigate the tension. This study contributes to the sustainability management literature by suggesting a monitoring tool that can capture the dynamics of tensions and identify paradox strategies to manage them. This provides guidance for managers and other stakeholders involved in industrial ecology and symbiosis.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".