Reckoning with Reality: Reflections on a Place-Based Social Innovation Lab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a reflection upon a social innovation lab process used to establish and build an ongoing culture of sustainability (COS) within a new multi-tenant commercial office building. It seeks to answer two key questions: (1) what are the design tensions that emerge when constructing co-design processes meant to encourage social innovation in a complex system while working from inside that complex system; (2) in building commons governance structures in a complex system, what are realistic expectations for the voluntary participation when multiple organizations with different core mandates are involved? This paper’s primary results come from reflecting upon the COS development coming from the social innovation lab process and adaptations process needed for it to work within a place-based context. The COS intervention itself is still in process and was disrupted by COVID-19, so these findings are still preliminary. Participatory co-design research often involves a great deal of complexity and tacit knowledge, so the key finding here is the surfacing of four core sources of tension that arise when developing a co-design process for the management of a commons: the allocation of costs for co-ordinating collective action, balancing a homogeneous platform for action with heterogeneous participants, physical building infrastructure and social co-design approaches, and between-tenant organization leadership and co-design approaches. This paper’s key contribution is in clarifying core challenges that participatory process designers face when developing and implementing co-design processes.
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 | 0.051 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".