Responding to Complexity with Humility: A Systems-oriented Approach to Strategic Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic design has emerged as both a theory and a practice that integrates design thinking and systems thinking to work with complex issues. It acts as a platform for design disciplines to develop and evolve according to the scope of complexity that needs to be addressed. \n \nThis Major Research Project (MRP) looks at how systemic design influences an organization’s communication practice. It explores how the practice of strategic communication – the planned process of delivering a relevant message to a specific audience to achieve an objective – can be adapted to help organizations better reflect and respond to the real-world complexity of their issues (wicked problems) and stakeholders. \n \nUsing a case study focused on the Canadian news media ecosystem, a strategic communication plan is developed to reflect and respond to the interconnected problems and stakeholders across business, technology, regulatory, and cultural contexts. \n \nThe paper identifies the first set of learnings on how the principles of systemic design can inform the development of “systems communications” and how this practice is distinguished from strategic communication. It offers future research areas to explore systems communications further and discover the potential value for organizations.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".