Collaborative Inquiry Fuelled by Reflexive Learning: Changing Change
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, we dig deeper into the reflexive learning that fuels collaborative inquiry by examining the unique ways in which changing itself takes place. We draw on two examples of collaborative inquiry, offering autoethnographic insights from our own lived experiences of changing change. These insights are underpinned by reflexive learning which we capture in textual form to show how learning in collaborative inquiry involves “impacting with” rather than “impacting on.” Our analysis reveals that reflexivity is not a homogenous or static experience but consists of several dynamically changing entangled “dimensions” of practice. Through dimensions relating to the process, content, and impact of reflexive learning, collaborators can arrive at a “stance”—a fluid, loosely shared basis for action that enables organizational practices to be reconfigured or preserve key principles.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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