Organization Theory and Ontological Claims: Working out tensions in CCO scholarship and organization studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What distinguishes organizations from other social collectives is a recurring question in organization theory. This article engages with the notion of “organizationality” as a recent proposition stemming from CCO (communicative constitution of organization) scholarship to address this question. We argue that by claiming to synthesize a number of insights worked out in organization studies over the last decades, what we call the “theory of organizationality” commits to a number of unproblematized ontological assumptions, which may be shared well outside its CCO source. Questioning those assumptions may, therefore, be useful to help organizational scholarship as a whole to grow on more solid theoretical grounds, making our ideas clearer not only about what it is we study but also how to relate among our various approaches and with other fields of social inquiry.
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 | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".