Dialogue, Process, and Reflection: Notes on Creating a Decoding Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we introduce ourselves and invite those new to the burgeoning Decoding organization, and/or to Decoding itself, to join this community of Decoders/Disrupters. We each describe our recent experiences as co-chairs of the Decoding organization in order to highlight key features of the Decoding/Disrupting model and frameworks of interest to newcomers. Specifically, we focus on the following features of Decoding/Disrupting: perspective-taking, the value of “outsider” frames of reference, and a focus on process and relationship-building. We reflect on what we have learned from our experiences as co-chairs about Decoding/Disrupting and creating an organization. We describe next steps for developing a Decoding organization that will serve as a home base for Decoders and Disruptors in a variety of geographic locations and epistemological contexts.
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 | 0.026 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".