Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, complexity science has been utilized as a metaphor for understanding health care organizations and new ways of leading within them. In this article, 3 principles of complexity leadership put forth by Porter-O'Grady and Malloch in the text Quantum Leadership are explored: (1) wholes are not just the sum of their parts; (2) all health care is local; and (3) value is now the centerpiece of service delivery. Each of these principles is discussed from a 20th-century "organization as machine" perspective, a complexity science perspective, and a complex relational processes (CRP) view. The CRP lens provides a useful bridge from the hard science (nonhuman) systems metaphor to what we often think of as the soft skills of relationship building and communication. CRP does this by drawing on philosophy and the social sciences of sociology and psychology as a way to humanize the nonhuman metaphors of complexity science. This opens up new ways of understanding and talking about leadership in organizations. This shifts our traditional thinking of individuals as leaders to a more relational process of complex relational leading that occurs between people within organizations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".