MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Critical Transitions

2016· book-chapter· en· W2338094830 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

VenuePrinceton University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität HamburgPrinceton University
KeywordsSubjectivityConceptual frameworkInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyManagement scienceThrough-the-lens meteringSociologyPolitical scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceSocial scienceEngineeringLens (geology)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter fleshes out an inductive framework for understanding stasis and critical transitions. The framework has been developed with a lens on Brazil, but to illustrate its wider applicability, this chapter applies the framework very generally to understand the critical transitions in Argentina from the early twentieth century to 2014. The key elements in the framework are beliefs and leadership, which interact synergistically and vary across countries. Because beliefs and leadership cannot be measured rigorously and classified, the use of the framework necessarily involves subjectivity and interpretation. With more case studies applying this framework, more general lessons on the dynamics among beliefs, power, leadership, institutions, policies, and outcomes that form stasis or development can be constructed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.175 · 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