Traditions and Custodial Work in Unstable and Turbulent Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditions, and the custodians who maintain and preserve them, are highly valued and recognized as central for many organizational processes such as institutional persistence, organizational identity and legitimacy and strategy. In contemporary organizational settings however, traditions have come under increasing pressures that threaten their continuity. In this symposium, we explore how custodians respond to these various threats and analyze the outcomes of their strategies by focusing on traditions in unstable and turbulent contexts. The studies collectively highlight two themes under-theorized in the literature on traditions and custodial work. The first theme is change—how and to what extent do traditions change to survive a turbulent time? The second theme is custodial work as strategy—how do custodians respond to threats, creatively, collaboratively or defensively, and how do these strategies contribute to the persistence or erosion of the tradition? In connection to the AOM 2024 theme, the goal of this symposium is to generate conversations and insights into the role of custodians in innovating for the future, while preserving the traditions and values that make up the foundation of community and collective identity. “Even Better than the Real Thing”? Electronic Organs and the Dilemma of Imitating Tradition-Bound Author: Andrew Nelson; U. of Oregon Disidentification in short lived fields: Emergence and Dissolution of the Australian Legal High Author: Lee Charles Jarvis; Warwick Business School Author: Alison Joubert; Adelaide Business School Tradition under Contract: Cultivating Offshoot Traditions through Collaborative Custodianship Author: Alan Zhang; MIT Sloan School of Management Control, Care, and Culinary Practice: How Chefs Engage and Justify Newly Stigmatized Management Author: Daphne Ann Demetry; McGill U. Author: Gillian Gualtieri; Barnard College
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".