Organizing Space and Spatializing Organization: Charting New Territories of Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium critically engages with the 'spatial turn' in organizational studies and challenges traditional views of the role of space in organizational activities. It aims to advance the understanding of how space and organization mutually shape one another. By integrating two complementary perspectives—organizing space and spatializing organization—the symposium explores how organizations intentionally and unintentionally produce, enact, and govern space, and how spatial arrangements influence organizational processes and practices. Presenting insights from current research projects of a diverse group of distinguished scholars, it focuses on the transformation of space into place, the role of spatial assemblages in facilitating or constraining action, and the recursive relationship between spatial and organizational identities. Moreover, the symposium highlights how the interdependence of spatial and social inequalities carries profound implications for organization and management theory to enter new research directions and foster interdisciplinary dialogue. We have always been nomads: Did organization studies really take the spatial turn? Author: Nicolas Bencherki; Author: Boukje Cnossen; From space to place: The role of custodians in curating and navigating legacy Author: Tina Dacin; Queen's University Author: Anna Hartman; Can the spirit of the place be created? Author: Sabina Keston-Siebert; University of Glasgow Author: Kevin Orr; University of Hull Societal living spaces as multicellular systems: Towards an organism model of stakeholder governance Author: Florian Koehne; Johannes Kepler University Linz Author: Laura Woodward-Heni; -
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 | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.130 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".