Leading through paradox: Navigating tensions in transformative networks
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
Abstract Managing multiple paradoxes is critical to transformative systems leadership, particularly in the context of translocal networks. In this paper, we explore a novel aspect of Earth Stewardship: how leaders of these networks harness paradox management to generate and scale innovative sustainability solutions. By integrating seemingly contradictory forces, such as harmony and disruption, cohesion and autonomy, and reflection and action, leaders foster dynamic environments conducive to both innovation and transformative learning. We identify three key paradoxes: (1) the embrace of harmony and disruption, fostering transformative learning; (2) the tension between cohesion and autonomy, which promotes innovation by scaling solutions within diverse contexts; and (3) the interplay between reflection and action, which enhances metis, a crucial strategy for navigating the uncertainties of transitioning systems. These paradoxes, when embraced rather than resolved, enable translocal networks to catalyze systemic changes. This paper explores how these leadership practices drive sustainability solutions, an essential yet underexamined aspect of Earth Stewardship.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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