Partnering for Impact: A Grand Challenge and Design for Co-Creating a Just, Resilient and Flourishing Society
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
In this paper I elaborate on the design and dimensions of interorganisational collaborations particularly when the purpose of connecting is the co-creation of knowledge for impact. I extend recent accounts of co-creating knowledge and explain why co-creation is integral to the “common good” logic especially when the focus of partnering for impact embraces the marked improvements in action that constitutes the impact of collaboration. I then elaborate on “partnering for impact” as a collaborative design and explicate the axiology that this mode of co-creation calls for, marked by a fresh perspective on inclusiveness founded on isotimia and philotimia . I illustrate the manifestation of these dimensions in the GNOSIS approach of co-creating impact through the embeddedness of “re-search” as a common practice. I conclude by inviting greater reflexivity in the relationship between science and society when partnering for impact is intended to co-create a just, resilient and flourishing society.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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