Learning as Grounding and Flying: Knowledge, Skill and Transformation in Changing Work Contexts
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
Before activities in workplace skill development and skill transformation can be pursued, what exactly is meant by `skill' requires careful examination. The notion of `skill' is far from consensual or accepted unproblematically, and this article is focused on the various meanings and problems that have arisen around `skill'. Four conventional conceptions of skill are examined critically and rejected: that a skill exists as a discrete competency, that a skill is `acquired' and is centered in the individual, that work skill (and knowledge) is learned through mental reflection on `concrete' experience, and that skill development is about behavior, not politics. Towards expanding conceptions of work learning, contemporary theories applicable to changing work environments are outlined: learning as participation in situated practices, as expansion of objects and ideas, as `translation' and mobilization, and as embodied emergence. Drawing insights from these four perspectives, a conception of work learning embedding a double movement of `flying' and `grounding' is offered. The argument is theory-driven and largely focused on work contexts subject to rapid knowledge transformation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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