Management canon — not an AI paper
Why this work is here
This work belongs to the management canon because the B1 corpus evidence passed the ruled invocation test. The invocation statements below remain separate from the source’s own arguments; they are not claims about AI use.
Invocation endpoint ceiling: B1 establishes the source-level invocation records below but does not assert a public paper endpoint where its evidence bundle supplies none.
Corpus-evidenced invocation support
Within the adjudicated three-family local corpus, barley-1986 has 2 weighted invocation occurrence(s) (B1-L1=2; B1-L2=0; B1-L3=0).
local-corpus-extraction · confidence: highWithin the same corpus and the declared logical-document map, barley-1986 appears in 1 citing document(s) (B1-L1=1; B1-L2=0; B1-L3=0).
local-corpus-extraction · confidence: highFrom the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded source arguments
Only separately evidenced source-argument claims appear here. B1 itself adds none; relevance to AI × MOS is carried only by the invocation relationship and is never retrofitted as an AI claim.
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (15)
- Artificial Intelligence at Work: An Integrative Perspective on the Impact of AI on Workplace Inequality
- Algorithm-Augmented Work and Domain Experience: The Countervailing Forces of Ability and Aversion
- Algorithmic Recommendation Tools and Experiential Learning in Clinical Care
- Skill Deprioritization: Reorganizing in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- When Knowledge Work and Analytical Technologies Collide: The Practices and Consequences of Black Boxing Algorithmic Technologies
- Knowing Enough to Be Dangerous: The Problem of “Artificial Certainty” for Expert Authority When Using AI for Decision Making and Planning
- In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King: Knowledge Brokerage in the Age of Learning Algorithms
- Syncing Minds and Machines: Hybrid Cognitive Alignment as an Emergent Coordination Mechanism in Human-AI Collaboration
- “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a System View to Explore the Future of Work
- Producing Images and Making Judgement: The ongoing use of epistemic technologies in expert work
- Algorithmic management and worker agency: The platform perspective on algoactivism
- Losing Touch: An Embodiment Perspective on Coordination in Robotic Surgery
- Organizational and Economic Obstacles to Automation: A Cautionary Tale from AT&T in the Twentieth Century
- Organizations as Artificial Intelligences: The Use of Artificial Intelligence Analogies in Organization Theory
- To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- For barley-1986, 2 weighted invocation(s) in 1 logical citing document(s) come from related local B1 family/families B1-L1; they are not independent-literature or field-wide citation-frequency evidence.
- These corpus-local invocation counts are source-argument evidence, not field-wide citation-frequency evidence.
- Primary occurrences include ruled derivative observations; the FA-R7 count removes the identified duplicates.
Source independence
For barley-1986, 2 weighted invocation(s) in 1 logical citing document(s) come from related local B1 family/families B1-L1; they are not independent-literature or field-wide citation-frequency evidence.