Sessional Design-Action Research Curriculum Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A gigamap to inform a rural flourishing social enterprise ecosystem \nGeorgian College’s Centre for Changemaking and Social Innovation (CCSI) identified Social Entrepreneurship as one of the systemic areas where change-making knowledge and resources could support social impact in a uniquely Canadian rural context. Through its initiative SENCO (the Social Enterprise Network of Central Ontario), CCSI became accountable, by 2022, for the establishment of 35 provincial partnerships, 7000 individuals engaged and 70 accelerated Strongly Sustainable social enterprises within the rural regions surrounding our seven campuses. \n \nAs part of SENCO’s deliverables aligning to 70 accelerated Strongly Sustainable regional social enterprises, a curriculum framework was researched and designed to support individual community participants in developing a social enterprise idea using the Flourishing Business Canvas 2.0. \n \nThe Gigamap (Norris and Telfer, 2018) outlines the systemic context as to how this curriculum might shift a uniquely Canadian rural region towards a Flourishing Social Enterprise landscape. Its goal was to explore the possibilities of using the Flourishing Business Canvas 2.0 beyond bounded firms (and their actor ecologies), contributing to the socio-ecological research in systemic design offering potential to what might be the Canadian corollary of Politecnico di Torino program’s Systemic Design Field research in renewal and sustainability of rural communities. (Jones, citing Barbero, 2018)
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".