From network to meshwork: Becoming attuned to difference in transdisciplinary environmental research encounters
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
Transdisciplinary research has been promoted as a means of bringing together certified experts and stakeholders to produce knowledge that is policy-relevant, salient, credible, and legitimate to inform decision-making about complex problems. In this article I discuss the limitations of using the ‘network’ metaphor in transdisciplinary research practice and propose the use of a different metaphor to make transdisciplinary research encounters more attuned to difference. This research is informed by Tim Ingold’s use of ‘meshwork’ as a metaphor for how life is lived along lines of becoming: emergent, indeterminate, contingent, historical, narrative. In this paper, my objective is to explain and illustrate by way of an example of a transdisciplinary climate change adaptation project the need for a new metaphor to convey the open-endedness of transdisciplinary research where subject positions are not conceived in advance of a research encounter, such as in the ‘network’ metaphor, but erupt in the interstices of research methods, objectives and desired outcomes. The meshwork metaphor implies that transdisciplinarity should be reframed as a practice of attunement to difference, becoming skilled in paying attention, witnessing, and responding to differences.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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