MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408840742 · doi:10.1177/00218863251328730

From Near and Far: On the Role of Distance in Changing Professional Services

2025· article· en· W4408840742 on OpenAlexafffund
Tracey L. Adams, David Brock, Daniel Muzio, John Amis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversidade Nova de LisboaUniversity of BathUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SheffieldUniversity of BernUniversity of OttawaUniversity of WarwickAthabasca University
KeywordsPsychologyPublic relationsSociologyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this editorial, we consider how technology, globalization, and organizational changes have led to professional services being delivered increasingly at a distance. We argue that the impacts of these changes are felt at individual, organizational, and institutional field levels. Impacts include changes in professional career trajectories, collegiality and collaboration, and altered client–professional relations. These developments generate new challenges for governance and organizing across borders. While existing research is often optimistic about what these changes mean for professionals and consumers, some scholars raise concerns about their impact on professional–client interactions, trust, and service quality. In addition to examining these areas, we suggest opportunities for future research that can further our understanding of the implications of these changes for the provision and organization of professional services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207