A model of collaborative agency and common ground.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more healthcare delivery is provided via collaborative means there is a need to understand how to design information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support collaboration. Existing research has largely focused on individual aspects of ICT usage and not how they can support the coordination of collaborative activities. In order to understand how we can design ICTs to support collaboration we need to understand how agents, technologies, information and processes integrate while providing collaborative care delivery. Co-agency and common ground have both provided insight about the integration of different entities as part of collaboration practices. However there is still a lack of understanding about how to coordinate the integration of agents, processes and technologies to support collaboration. This paper combines co-agency and common ground to develop a model of collaborative agency and specific categories of common ground to facilitate its coordination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".