MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193745088 · doi:10.1177/00218863211038119

The Generative Change Model: Creating the Agile Organization While Dealing With a Complex Problem

2021· article· en· W3193745088 on OpenAlexaff
Gervase R. Bushe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipVariety (cybernetics)Agile software developmentGenerative grammarProcess managementProcess (computing)Planned changeDialogicStakeholderChange management (ITSM)Generative modelIntervention (counseling)Knowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyPsychologyBusinessOrganization developmentPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyPublic relationsMarketingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generative change model identifies the underlying process that has produced success in a variety of Dialogic Organization Development (OD) and large group intervention cases. It works with widespread stakeholder engagement and self-organizing properties of human systems, to create rapid, transformational change. It appears better suited to managing complex, adaptive challenges than traditional planned change. The paper briefly describes the model and explains one aspect of it in more depth, the use of purpose, instead of vision, to guide the change process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207