MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024876587 · doi:10.1093/sw/48.3.401

Excavating Our Frames of Mind: The Key to Dialogue and Collaboration

2003· article· en· W2024876587 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyKey (lock)Frame (networking)Position (finance)SociologyLaw and economicsComputer sciencePhilosophyEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversations between colleagues who hold divergent views of a case or practice situation often take the form of a win-lose debate in which contenders, arguing from within their respective frameworks, find they are unable to reach mutual understanding. The resulting impasse makes mutual understanding and collaboration difficult. Our typical way of resolving the impasse is to invoke the evidence for our own position, hoping that the facts somehow speak for themselves. Strangely, this may only exacerbate the impasse and worsen our view of our colleagues, whom we presume to be ignoring the facts. This article attempts to show that reflecting on the frame--not debating the facts--might be a more helpful way to approach such impasses and to reach mutual understanding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it