Asset mapping 2.0; contextual, iterative, and virtual mapping for community development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue a re-appraisal of asset mapping is needed based on revisiting the concept of assets. Asset mapping is useful for inter/trans-disciplinary work involving complex systems: organizations, administrations, governance systems, social-ecological systems, etc. Asset mapping can be an integrative method, allowing a combination of different disciplinary insights and knowledge types; co-defining what is valuable in and for a system. We propose a new version of asset mapping that combines contextual, iterative, and virtual asset mapping in different manners depending on the system and situation. The unpredictable character of co-evolution makes iterative asset mapping important, contextual asset mapping allows different delineations of relevant contexts, and virtual asset mapping entails recognizing assets in different futures, either scenario-based or as strategy options. We argue that this novel approach is particularly important for planning, in the broad sense, because it provides a bridging opportunity with other fields, connecting discourses and policy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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.
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".