Modeling complex socio‐technical systems using the FRAM: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This is a review paper of studies that have employed the functional resonance analysis method (FRAM). FRAM is a relatively new systemic method for modeling and analyzing complex socio‐technical systems. This review aims to address the following research questions: (a) Why is FRAM used? (b) To what domains has FRAM been applied? (c) What are the appropriate data collection approaches in practice? (d) What are the deficiencies of FRAM? A review of 52 FRAM‐related studies published between 2010 and 2020 revealed that FRAM‐based models can be used as a basis for improving safety management, accident/incident investigation, hazard identification/risk management, and complexity management in complex socio‐technical systems. The outcomes also showed that healthcare was the most common domain that employed FRAM (31% of the investigated studies). The results of exploring data collection methods indicated a mixed method (interview, focus group, observation) was employed in 52% of the analyzed studies, and the accident investigation report was the most popular approach in aviation‐related studies. An investigation of the deficiencies of the FRAM showed that it should be upgraded by exploiting supplementary methods to enhance its analytical and computational capacity to help risk analysts and safety managers in complex socio‐technical systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".