Complex Responsive Processes: An Alternative Interpretation of Knowledge, Knowing, and Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers as an alternative theoretical perspective to the growing collection of commentaries on and studies of certain complex dynamical phenomena—human knowledge and knowing. Specifically, this is an introduction to another complexity‐related theoretical framework known as “complex responsive processes” (CRP). CRP draws upon certain conceptual ideas from the complexity sciences as a source domain for analogies with particular characteristics of human interaction. The central concern is for how individual and collective identities arise, how such identities are related, and how they change. In this paper, an overview of certain key conceptual ideas from the complexity sciences in relation to CRP will be reviewed to situate CRP on the larger theoretical landscape of complex dynamical phenomena. In the end, this paper will examine some implications for such a framework on the ways in which certain aspects of human knowledge and knowing might relate to contexts of pedagogy: in particular, this paper examines the place of knowledge, knowing, and understanding in terms of the CRP structure of gesture‐and‐response or “effect” as opposed to “affect.”
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".