Toward Common Ground and Action on Repetitive Strain Injuries
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
Numerous participatory approaches to action on complex issues have emerged in recent years. One approach, the Future Search conference, is said to build a shared vision and rapid action by diverse stakeholders. This article reports on a detailed qualitative analysis of a Future Search conference on repetitive strain injuries, an ambiguous, conflictridden, and systemic problem. The Future Search encouraged the expression of diverse perspectives and mapped a certain domain of common ground. It stimulated various kinds of action, enhanced stakeholder involvement and awareness, and increased commitment to multistakeholder dialogue and action. Several weaknesses of the Future Search model are identified. Specifically, this study suggests the need for more participant clarity about what is expected, a more solid framework to support follow-up action, greater explicitness about what constitutes common ground, and more time for common-ground building and action planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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