From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
Crossref records this Academy of Management Journal article under a title about institutional custodians taming disruptive algorithms.
Scope: title-and-bibliographic-metadata only
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (9)
- Expanding the Locus of Resistance: Understanding the Co-constitution of Control and Resistance in the Gig Economy
- Working for an Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings
- To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis
- Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
- Managing by Data: Algorithmic Categories and Organizing
- The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations
- When Knowledge Work and Analytical Technologies Collide: The Practices and Consequences of Black Boxing Algorithmic Technologies
- When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions
- “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a System View to Explore the Future of Work
Cited by (3)
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Crossref supplies a 2024-10 issue date but no day-level published date, so published_date is null
- Retained Crossref query-page metadata only; no exact work refetch was made and full text was not inspected
- Scope inclusion rests on title-level organizational relevance; substantive claims were not coded
Source independence
publisher-only