An Open, Transparent and Practical Approach to Understanding Values and Values Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarly interest in organizational values and values practices, or the sayings and doings in organizations that articulate and accomplish what is normatively right or wrong, is rising. Yet how values practices are conceptualized and studied varies significantly depending on the theoretical perspectives held by researchers. Institutional scholars, for example, may conceptualize values practices as activity that enacts, protects, or sustains important institutionally held values of organizational actors. Conversely, scholars holding a practice perspective, may conceptualize values practices as the work of organizational actors as they collectively “accomplish the good” by identifying and resolving troubling situations. These different conceptualizations of values practices may shape where researchers look for values and values practices in organizations, and the theoretical conclusions they draw about values practices. This symposium brings together scholars holding institutional and practice-based perspectives to better understand how these perspectives can contribute to a more comprehensive theory of values and values practices. In doing so, this symposium contributes to greater understanding of values in organizations by offering new pathways for the study of values in organizations, a foundation for practice-driven institutionalism, and a more complete theory of values in organizations and institutions that is compatible with both practice and institutional perspectives. The immorality of benevolence: How Paternalistic Values Sustain Social Inequality Author: Venus Sharma; The University of Edinburgh Author: John Matthew Amis; The University of Edinburgh Organizational Response to Values Pluralism: An Institutional Perspective Author: Ricardo Gabriel Flores; University of Victoria Author: Matthew Kraatz; Author: Emily S. Block; University of Alberta Author: David Chandler; University of Colorado-Denver/Anschutz Medical Campus The Values Practices Linking Organizational Routines Author: Jeff Larson; Marshall University From solidarity to sustainability: the role of solidarity values work stakeholder engagement Author: Rosa Fioravante;
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 | 0.075 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.133 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.048 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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, 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".