Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is has now become widely recognized that our world has become increasingly complexified and immersed in societal issues that require a diversity of perspectives to effectively engage. Collective innovation holds the promise of enabling a plurality of views necessary for creating effective innovation strategies. Yet collective processes are beset by a range of issues that are challenging for scholars, researchers, and practitioners to understand and effectively manage. Building on the complexity typologies theory as augmented by insights from the field of systemic design, the authors propose a missing element to enable collective action initiatives – identified as meta-cognitive skills critical to group collaboration and collective innovation processes. They illustrate the proposal with well-known examples and some of the latest studies in the field. They conclude by proposing next steps that educators or practitioners might employ in their own educational, curriculum design, and practice contexts – recognizing the key elements of praxis that connects them all.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it