Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ecosystem concept borrowed from the natural sciences has provided social scientists with useful ways to study societal constructs like organizations and economic regions. Academics and practitioners have applied this lens to the business world to describe complex relationships between organizations and people, but such discussions typically neglect the normative issues, perspectives, and values that are inherent in social systems. Meanwhile, natural sciences scholars have developed the ecosystem services concept to assess how ecological ecosystems contribute to human well-being, which has enhanced their perceived, experienced, and economic value to society. Our paper uniquely integrates theory and research in the natural and organizational sciences to consider the limitations of the current ecosystems metaphor and to examine normative issues and the parallels and divergences between ecological and human-constructed ecosystems. Compelled by worldwide urgency surrounding sustainability and the role of organizations therein, we develop the case for expanding business ecosystems studies to emphasize the human well-being impacts, in particular with a new construct and research discipline focused on “business ecosystems services,” for which we will offer an analysis of well-being benefits and research questions to propel the field forward.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".