Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article responds to the fourth-person perspective introduced by Scharmer and Pomeroy (2024), which positions the social field as a new epistemological category of collective knowing. In contrast, it introduces Dynamic Presencing Coaching (DPC) (Gunnlaugson, 2024a–2025) in contributing to evolving development of fourth-person knowing by offering a fully embodied and inhabitable approach to presencing in both individual and collective coaching contexts. Central to this contribution is the presencing self-sense—a lived, phenomenological orientation that functions as a dynamic conduit of presence. In DPC, this self-sense is enacted through the coach’s inner presencing body as it connects their presencing self in the presencing field as a living, self-generating circulation and flow of presence. From this perspective, the accessibility and depth of fourth-person knowing emerges through an inner enactment of five dimensional, embodied level-depths of presence. To support this reframing, the article articulates five critical contributions of DPC: (1) recasting embodied participation in relation to the presencing field; (2) providing a cohesive ontological framework for field engagement; (3) integrating individual and collective dynamics through presence; (4) reconfiguring the temporal architecture of presencing to integrate past, present, emerging future, and eternal dimensions of deep time; and (5) restoring practitioner agency as a co-creative force in shaping the field. These contributions build upon the ontological foundations of Dynamic Presencing (DP) (Gunnlaugson, 2020–2025), which affirms the presencing field as an emergent, immanent dimension of presence. Overall, Dynamic Presencing Coaching contributes to a reframing of fourth-person knowing as an embodied generative way of presencing within coaching and the whole of daily life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".