Systems-mapping Alberta's writing community: the Writers' Guild of Alberta's role in collaborative community development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Master’s Project examines the Writers’ Guild of Alberta’s (WGA) current role and interorganizational relationships and maps and analyses the system that underpins the writing community in Alberta. Through the documentation and analysis of the writing system, the findings are designed to help inform decisions made by the WGA Board of Directors about the role the WGA could play in fostering a vibrant writing community. The research question of this master's project is "What role should be assumed by the WGA to collaborate effectively within the writing community?" By utilizing a systems design methodology supported by a stakeholder analysis, the relationships between organizations in Alberta's writing community were explored to answer the research question. Key informant interviews were used to collect information from key stakeholders within the writing community. Findings indicated similarities across different art service organizations operating within the Alberta writing community including purpose, audience, and financial structures. While participants stated there were common goals across organizations, common goals were difficult to consistently articulate. While some system archetypes were identified, participants felt that the Alberta writing community was thriving and there is a desire to improve interorganizational collaboration. This master's project yielded four recommendations for the WGA including shifting more towards advocacy and connectivity within the larger community, undertaking collaborative interorganizational planning, exploring a community-wide needs assessment, and continuing to celebrate and recognize writers in Alberta.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".