MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091942545 · doi:10.1177/0893318903262242

The Communicative Achievement of Collective Minding

2004· article· en· W2091942545 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

VenueManagement Communication Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonCollective intelligenceContext (archaeology)PsychologySocial psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologySociologyLinguisticsKnowledge managementComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on an in-depth analysis of excerpts from a board meeting in a drug rehabilitation center, this article shows how a group of managers displays a form of intelligence that cannot be reduced to the simple sum of their respective contributions. Although this phenomenonhas been illustrated so far in the context of high-reliability organizations, this analysis extends previous findings by showing that a form of collective intelligence can be found more generally in patterns of conversational behavior. The managers are shown to be constructing, amending, and adding a series of textual blocks that ultimately represent the heedfulness of the group. Although it can only be achieved on the “terra firma” of interactions, collective minding is shown to be a phenomenon that always transcends the “here and now” by interrelating this latter with the “there and then,” a phenomenon of translocalization that can be identified as a form of organizational intelligence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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