Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenges of our complex, uncertain and ambiguous world take us to the limits of conventional ways of knowing and being in leadership. We might see this as an invitation to move beyond the conventional and attune to our wider senses and field consciousness, which allows us to access presenced ways of knowing and navigating that hold generative potential. Integrating a presencing disposition in our leadership, however, is not a temporary practice to add to our toolbox; it requires an ontological apprenticeship of grounding our being in deeper realms of presence from where new answers and resources may arise. These states of presence are not accessible or sustainable without being deeply connected to our bodies and -through that- to our deeper essence and source. Based on a two-year collaborative action research process with a group of executive leaders, this article highlights the catalysing role of embodiment in navigating leadership challenge – not only to facilitate a presencing disposition on a day-to-day basis, but also to ground us in an ontological paradigm that enables a way of being and relating to reality in a generative presencing way. In particular, this article suggests two practices that facilitate our deep embodiment in this apprenticeship: The regular practice of grounding, and the practice of navigating with the felt sense of a presencing insight over time. Both micro practices, being implemented into day-to-day leadership long-term, they appear to have the potential to enable us to navigate the complex and unknown with an embodied compass, to ground us in an ontological paradigm that allows us to access resources and insights beyond the rational-analytic realm, and to tap into the generative potential inherent in our given reality.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".