Statues and culture wars. How statues communicatively constitute organizational cultures in conflictual situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statues are said to speak to us, to communicate who we are, and who and what we value—our culture. However, prior research has not sought to investigate the in situ and active role that statues play in constituting organizational culture in general, and even less so in the struggle to constitute organizational culture in conflictual situations. To address this lacuna, using the Montreal School of Communication’s notion of ventriloquism and data drawn from debate concerning whether to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University, or not, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate that statues can be weaponized in the struggle to impose or resist an organizational culture. We thus propose adding a critical dimension to ventriloquism to address the research question: how do statues speak to, and act on, us so as to communicatively constitute organizational culture in conflictual situations?
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".