Bibliometric Analysis of Institutional Theory Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutional Theory is essential for understanding organizational dynamics and societal impacts on business conduct. This research performs a bibliometric analysis of Institutional Theory literature utilizing Scopus data processed through ScientoPy and VOSviewer. Results indicate a substantial rise in scholarly output over the past sixty years, particularly since the early 2000s. Key publication venues include the "Journal of Management Inquiry" and "Journal of Management Studies." Notable topics feature institutional theory, logics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability. Geels' (2004) work on socio-technical systems is the most referenced. The United States ranks highest in research contributions, followed by the United Kingdom and Canada. The study highlights the progressive adaptation of Institutional Theory to modern challenges, indicating the necessity for responsiveness to evolving organizational and societal contexts. Future inquiries should focus on the influence of Institutional Theory on sustainability, its facilitation of organizational transformation, and its applicability in varied cultural and economic landscapes. These findings offer a foundational framework for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to deepen their exploration of Institutional Theory and its relevance to organizational behavior and societal impacts on business activities. This analysis provides significant insights for enhancing theoretical frameworks and practical implementations of Institutional Theory across diverse organizational environments.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.022 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.335 | 0.370 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".