MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Referee report. For: Reframing organizations in the digital age: A qualitative study exploring institutional social media adoption [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]

2021· article· en· W4416604208 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alice Fornari

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of 1000 Research Ltd · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationMcMaster University
KeywordsCognitive reframingQualitative researchSocial mediaThe InternetDigital mediaQualitative analysisDiscourse analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Social media is changing the modern academic landscape; this study sought to explore how organizational structures support or inhibit the harnessing of social media use in academic contexts and knowledge translation. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using framework analysis based on the Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model—structural, human resources, political and symbolic. The research team used the snowball sampling technique to recruit participants following the completion of each participant’s semi-structured interview. A member check was completed to ensure rigour. Results: 16 social media educators and experts from several countries participated in the study. Study findings showed that within the Structural Frame, institution types were reported to have with diverse hierarchical structures, ranging from strict to malleable: hospital-based (strict), education institutional-based and online only groups (malleable). The Human Resources Frame revealed that most participants’ social media organizations operated on unpaid volunteer staff. The training of these staff was primarily via role-modeling and mentorship. Regarding the Political Frame, social media helped participants accumulate scholarly currency and influence within their field of practice. Symbolic Frame showed a wide range of traditional to non-traditional organizational supports, which interacted with both intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. Conclusions: Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model framework may serve as an effective guideline for academic leaders who wish to strategically implement or enhance social media use into their organizations. The key insights that we have gained from our participants are how new emerging forms of scholarly pursuits can be more effectively enabled or hindered by the attributes of the organization within which these are occurring.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.207
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.207
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3170.083

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of 1000 Research LtdSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207