Ideas, in Motion: Twenty-five Years of Rethinking Relations and Knowledge at the COI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Center on Organizational Innovation (COI) at Columbia University celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary, and this essay reviews this quarter of a century of conceptual and methodological innovations at COI in the area of networks, communication, and knowledge. The content of these concepts has changed markedly, partly due to advances within interdisciplinary encounters, and partly due to fundamental changes in underlying social phenomena. COI scholars strived to understand such novel phenomena by methodological innovation with conceptual richness, engaging with temptations to adopt simplistic and atavistic imageries of sociation and agency in interdisciplinary fields. The fields of network science, knowledge networks, and online communications are three areas where COI research brought novel insights, that challenged dominant perspectives, marrying an ethnographer’s mindset with a broad range of quantitative methods. In addition to reviewing COI research achievements, I also outline key contemporary empirical puzzles, where perspectives from COI remain relevant and fruitful.
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 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".