MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systemic Paralysis and Systemic Deterrence as Power Mechanisms of Change Failure

2024· article· en· W4400440638 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Development and Digital Transformation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeterrence (psychology)Systemic riskParalysisPower (physics)MedicineEconomicsLaw and economicsPsychiatryPhysicsKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The organizational fields’ literature has predominantly focused on cases of successful change, but paid much less attention to how change failure unfolds. Extrapolating from the failure of introducing public-private partnerships in Kuwait, we suggest the concept of institutional power work that explains how actors mobilize power to affect change within fields. We present three power strategies of manipulating, stalling and attacking that circumvent change to protect interests, and further delineate how these strategies produce two enduring mechanisms of institutional control: systemic paralysis and systemic deterrence that can lead to change failure. We contribute to organization theory by identifying the power strategies and mechanisms underpinning the interplay between interests and change failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it