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
First paragraphs: Following on my columns on scale (fall 2012) and feedback loops (spring 2013), I want to turn to another systems concept that is difficult and sometimes risky, but one that has to be embraced if we are to reach our goal of sustainable, resilient food systems. The concept is governance, which in general is understood as "managing, steering and guiding of public affairs by governing procedures and institutions in a democratic manner" (Pisano, Berger, Endl, & Sedlacko, 2011, p. 3). Governance has resonance in many different settings, but two are of particular interest: the first is the relevance and efficacy of organizational structures that we encounter and work with in attempting to change policy; the second is the governance of supply chains, which is so critical to any chain's success. I'm echoing some of the ideas in a recent article by the Nourishing Communities research group out of Ontario, Canada (Blay-Palmer et al., 2013). I'm also impressed with the sophisticated thinking going on around governance and sustain¬able development, the objective of which is to achieve simultaneously the population' s economic well-being, environmental protection, and social equity (Pisano et al., 2011). The idea is that governments and other institutions have to be open and capable of "steering societal development along more sustainable lines" (Meadowcroft quoted in Pisano et al., 2011, p. 4). This is no small task because most democratic institutions are fixated on economic growth and not on the common good as represented in sustainability and social justice (Bosselmann, Engel, & Taylor, 2008). Of course governance exists at all levels — global, national, regional, local, and corporate — and tends to be challenging because comprehensive approaches to both sustainability and development require an integration across many sectors, stakeholders, and levels of politics (Pisano et al., 2011). Flexibility is another prerequisite. All the social and environ-mental "actors" are in motion all the time — so plans and strategies that aren't collaborative and adaptive will not hit the mark.....
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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