ACCOMPLISHMENT OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION: AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES OF AN INTERNATIONAL BODY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study looks into the communicative practices of an international body in the accomplishment of interorganizational collaboration or IOC. It aligns with the Montreal School of the communicative constitution of organization or CCO approach, wherein conversations reflect the collective experience of individual members and become authored into text that shapes the collective organization. An ethnomethodological approach was used in carrying out the data collection and analysis. This includes transcribing and coding conversations from meeting workshops of a consortium established by the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). Results from this study show that contextualizing, consensus building, and confirming commitment (3Cs) are accomplished through communicative practices. These 3Cs constitute IOC through co-orientation and formation of authoritative text. The 3Cs demonstrate an authoritative text that enables individual members of an interorganizational network to act in consonance as a collective organization. This study also explains how the 3Cs could help gain a better appreciation for communication as well as recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".