Examining the Evolution of Network Governance Forms of an Event Leveraging Collective: A Longitudinal Investigation
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
This study aims to investigate how an event leveraging collective’s network governance forms evolved from pre- to post‐Games and how these forms influenced members' collaborative engagement. We adopted a longitudinal qualitative case study approach. Our primary data sources included 996 pages of archival documents and 18 interviews with collective members. We found that in the pre- and during-Games stage, the leveraging collective adopted a shared participant-governed form with a facilitator. This participant-driven structure could enhance connectedness and collaborative engagement among member organizations. In the postevent phase, the collective assumed a pillar-governed form with a facilitator. Although this structure appeared to promote within‐pillar collaboration, it could compromise cross-pillar integration. This study sheds light on the changing nature of an evolving leveraging collective from pre‐ to post‐Games. This study also provides practical implications for how to maintain a leveraging collective and optimize collaborative engagement among member entities in the long term.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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