Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from Technology to Interaction1
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GDSS has enjoyed about a decade and a half of vigorous research activity. Throughout this time, a problem that has occupied the research community is the inconsistent research results that have been obtained. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the reason for these inconsistencies is rooted in the epistemological mode that has prevailed and to offer an alternative epistemological lens that might help advance our understanding of GDSS use and research. Using qualitative research methods and a symbolic inter-actionist theoretical basis, this paper examines how a particular group used a GDSS over two meetings. The findings indicate that GDSS use may result in reactions from its users that are difficult to capture using conventional methodological assumptions, thereby helping explain why past results have not been consistent. Based on these findings, a shift in focus is advocated from an emphasis on the technology to an emphasis on human interaction, one that embraces the reasons underlying past inconsistencies rather than attempting to overcome them.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it