Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where are the boundaries between things located? When we meet another person or when we meet the tree in the forest or the sand by the shore each is changed by the other. We all know that at one level of reality we are different and yet we also know that the apparent rigidity between me and other dissolves in a constant and mutual exchange of cells, conversations and consciousness. In nature, the bridge between two points of apparent difference is a dynamic, interactive field of reciprocal engagement. Indeed, in nature, complex, reciprocal relationships are the sine qua non of ecosystems. Everything touches and is touched by everything else. It is in meeting, touching, listening and communicating with another that we discover most completely what we are and are able to express most eloquently who we are. The helping professions are increasingly seeking ways to bridge the epistemological gap between the atomistic and the ecological and cross those professional boundaries that have for too long kept helpers of every stripe separated and isolated from one another. Ironically, it is a new rediscovery of an ancient wisdom that is creating a catalyst for hope and change. Recently, those hopes to discover new linkages and a new era of collaborative professional partnerships to address pressing social and environmental problems took a small step forward. Professional helpers from a variety of disciplines including social work, psychology, nursing, education and environmental studies gathered in Calgary, Canada in May, 2009 for a first of its kind multi-disciplinary conference entitled: Building Bridges, Crossing Boundaries: Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Person, Planet and Professional Helping. The conference was suffused with both urgency and anticipation as professional helpers worked to better understand each other and those many ways they might cooperate across professional borders to build bridges to a more balanced and interdisciplinary view of the helping enterprise. This brief introduction provides a short sketch of the historical realities which created the ideological boundaries that the conference sought to bridge and how that has begun to change. It also provides a brief overview of each contributor’s work.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".