From agency to structure: Analysis of an episode in a facilitation process
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
In this article, we analyze an exercise in a facilitation process by showing that the structuring of this episode can be studied just by highlighting how different forms of agency (human and non-human) articulate with each other. The objective of this study is threefold: first, it aims at demonstrating that structuring effects can indeed be identified through a bottom-up approach without resorting to any form of duality or dualism, as it is common to think in the traditional literature in organizational studies (Conrad & Haynes, 2001); second, through this analysis, it illustrates the analytical power of such an approach by showing how it allows us to identify specific strategies used by the facilitators to do their work, especially in the way they select who or what is acting in a chain of agencies; third, it illustrates how the attribution of agency to artifacts allows human participants to progress throughout the facilitation process by enabling them to objectify what they are supposed to think and wish for, a process that Weick (1979) has identified as the bulk of organizing processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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