Sorry, I don't accept this very mechanical definition; not only is it a needlessly narrow one, it's downright meaningless in some paradigms, such as when implementing coroutines via continuations, but that doesn't mean you can't have frameworks in Scheme. Conversely, we could describe tuplespaces (a la Linda), or many event- or interrupt- driven systems (like an Ethernet port), as an inversion of control, but whether they're frameworks or not would be an open question, and indeed in the end almost everything happening inside a modern computer consists of one element calling back to another, up and down a stack.

Heck, it's not even true of some of those specifically called out in the article above. For example, I've written programs that use Rails as a library - or rather, suite of libraries - of functions and classes to be called, but anyone suggesting that Rails is somehow "not a framework", on the flimsy grounds that it did not dictate the flow of control, is gonna get some funny looks at morning standup.

But the greater problem is that narrow, mechanical definitions omit purpose, and talking about software without purpose being front-and-center becomes rapidly theological. If you're wondering what I mean by that, look up the wikipedia article for "Software framework", scroll through its desultory talk page, and recognize the inevitability of the boilerplate it got stuck with: "This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings".