Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central assumption in joint action research is that in order toexplain how individuals act as part of a group, we must firstexplain how the group comes into existence. This assump-tion has led to an unnecessarily narrow research programme:research has focussed largely on interpersonal coordinationmechanisms. I outline an alternative approach predicated ona dynamic conception of the ecosystem. On this view, thereis no need to assume that actors must first constitute a groupagent with their fellows before entering into coordinated ac-tion. Such coordination can be more efficiently explained byrecognizing that all actions perturb the structure of the ecosys-tem itself in a manner that can alter the action possibilitiesavailable to neighbouring actors. This move allows us to over-come entrenched debates over the nature of shared intention-ality, and to instead focus on practical interventions in multi-actor settings.
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 | 0.127 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".