MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402408038 · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.16026

Temporal Miscoupling: The Challenges and Consequences of Enacting a Practice in Decline

2024· article· en· W4402408038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samantha Ortiz Casillas, Ruthanne Huising

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsPsychologyBusinessComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practice firmly entrenched in one period can experience decline or even deinstitutionalization in another. However, at the organization level, practice abandonment can be a slow process. Organizations may continue to use a practice that is in decline or out of date, coupling asynchronously with a prior institutional environment. In this paper we develop the concept of temporal miscoupling and examine the challenges of performing a practice under this condition. Drawing on a field study of a labor strike in Canada, we examine the difficulties of inhabiting the practice of striking—picketing a workplace—with eroding political, legal, and cultural support; declining familiarity with the practice; and fading narratives to motivate and justify the practice. We show how strikers developed extemporaneous resources that gave local meaning and form to the practice. These improvised resources supported the practice but distorted historical meanings and performances. Our study expands the analytical repertoire of inhabited institutionalism by problematizing the temporal lag between institutional conditions and organizational practices for the on-the-ground enactment of practices. The extemporaneous resources generated in the context of temporal miscoupling threaten future enactments, indicating an important role for practice enactment in processes of decline and revitalization. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.16026 .

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization ScienceSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207