The Problem of Transfer from Confidential Interactive Problem‐Solving: What Is the Role of the Facilitator?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactive problem‐solving workshops provide a relatively confidential atmosphere in which members of societies engaged in protracted social conflict can examine and share their assumptions and perceptions about the conflict and think creatively about the possibilities for de‐escalation. Two sorts of workshop goals have generally been articulated: (1) creating change in participants’ understanding, and (2) transferring participants’ new ideas to political decision‐making and public discussion. Although facilitators have tended to emphasize the role of the participants in generating and transferring new learning, this article expands our conceptions of change and transfer to include both participants and facilitators. A basic complementarity is postulated between the strengths and weaknesses of these two agents of transfer. If considered this way, the integrity of this confidential process—and thus of its potentially unique contributions to a peace process—can be maintained while increasing the opportunities for transfer.
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 | 0.195 | 0.346 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".