Coworking Spaces: Catalysts of Workplace Revolution and Organizational Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium delves into the relevance, mechanisms, and transformative potential of coworking spaces. These shared work environments, equipped with essential infrastructure, attract individuals, start-ups, and established firms, serving as hubs for knowledge exchange, entrepreneurial activities, as well as innovation. By fostering collaboration mainly through physical co-presence, coworking spaces align with the open innovation paradigm while emphasizing community dynamics over organizational boundaries. Unlike incubation centers, coworking spaces cultivate vibrant ecosystems that facilitate resource sharing, knowledge exchange, and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition through collective reflection and inspiration. However, they also pose competitive risks such as opportunistic behavior, highlighting a need for maintaining a delicate balance between collaboration and competition. Despite their growing prominence, scholarly exploration of coworking spaces remains still limited. This panel symposium aims to advance the understanding of coworking spaces as catalysts for entrepreneurial activities and organizational change. By critically examining how various types of coworking spaces shape cooperation, entrepreneurial activities, and transformative processes, the symposium will explore their role in balancing the complexities of shared value creation and competition.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".