De-westernizing public relations: A comparative and global perspective on the influence of personal and patronage relationships across the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article highlights diversity and pluralism in the field of public relations. It challenges the normative ideals that books have traditionally taught us about how communication between organizations and their public should be. A review of the importance of personal and patronage relationships in non-western countries from every continent (Latin America and Southern Europe, China, India and Sub-Saharan Africa) shows a rich and complex reality about how communication happens. It reveals that we do not live in a perfect, predictable world – not necessarily a negative factor, but rather a source of richness. This should not be surprising news since the United States, Canada, Australia and western EU countries represent approximately just 8 per cent of the world population. A main diversity factor in strategic communication is the importance of patronage relationships, often ignored or minimized in books on the subject. Offering multiple perspectives aims to show how the importance of considering the construction of personal relationships as part of the strategic menu of organizations should not be stigmatized or considered an undesired outcome to eradicate. In most societies, patronage relationships and personal relations play a large role when organizations build relationships with their public.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".