MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197173470 · doi:10.3390/su13179813

How Transformation Catalysts Take Catalytic Action

2021· article· en· W3197173470 on OpenAlexaff
Ju Young Lee, Sandra Waddock

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipTransformative learningPaceStatus quoAction (physics)Process managementWork (physics)Political scienceSensemakingKnowledge managementBusinessEngineering ethicsComputer scienceSociologyPublic relationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenges that are associated with the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals are wickedly complex and interconnected in nature. Because they require transformational changes at the systems level, the pace of change has, so far, been nowhere near fast enough to meet the goals by 2030. In this paper, we analyze the catalytic actions of a novel form of organizing that could potentially facilitate the timely achievement of transformational aspirations such as the SDGs: the transformation catalyst (TC). By identifying 27 TCs and analyzing their vision, mission, values, and their practices represented on their websites, we elaborate the following four key ways that TCs are distinctive from other entities, and therefore potentially more capable of facilitating transformational changes at the systems level: (1) TCs have transformation agendas that target systems-level solutions to bring about large-scale and fundamental changes in the relevant system(s), as opposed to more incremental or fragmented approaches; (2) TCs engage in catalytic actions, such as connecting, cohering, and amplifying the work of partners and collaborators; (3) TCs clearly acknowledge the current status quo, attributions, and urgency (i.e., sensemaking) of the issues on which they focus; and finally, (4) TCs embody systems orientation. In exploring how TCs work, we hope to build a solid conceptual framework for understanding the nature of transformative catalytic action on societal issues, and consolidate our understanding of what elements are needed if TCs are to work, providing a starting point for future research.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.035
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207