Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the intricate nuances of the tensions and dualities that underlie the stress experienced by survivors of a downsizing process, encompassing the embodied dimensions of these tensions. Data was analyzed from a large public organization located in Canada, providing empirical evidence of the various tensions experienced by individuals while responding to the changes brought about by downsizing. It was suggested that these tensions could be understood as discursive strategies employed by members to navigate the stress and uncertainty of the process. To examine these accounts more closely, communication ventriloquial approach was utilized, offering a robust framework and analytical method that proved instrumental in dissecting the responses of organizational members as they confronted the multifaceted challenges stemming from the downsizing process. This research presented a tension-centered perspective of change, challenging traditional approaches to change. This approach enabled a deeper understanding of individuals’ communicative strategies and discourses during this period. By tracking figures, and tensions, the analysis shed light on preoccupations constituting the downsizing process. The analysis revealed three main tensions during the change process: supportiveness vs. equity, effectiveness vs. authority, and accountability vs. collegiality. It has been proposed that recognizing the communicative construction of these tensions is pivotal in effectively addressing issues of change and employees’ concerns throughout this process. The current literature did not explain how employees voiced their concerns or how these preoccupations interacted with one another to create multiple tensions. The findings suggested that employees’ preoccupations and concerns provided a deeper and more global picture of their experiences during the organizational change process, offering a better understanding of the tensions that were also part of the change process.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".