MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127599937 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18484818

Conflict as Phase Transition: A Dynamical Systems Theory of Escalation in Coupled Organizational Networks

2005· article· W7127599937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2005
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Power and Status Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamical systems theoryPhase (matter)Nonlinear systemInterpersonal communicationParametric statisticsCoupling (piping)Nonlinear dynamical systemsPhase transitionNetwork model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Title: Conflict as Phase Transition: A Dynamical Systems Theory of Escalation in Coupled Organizational Networks Authors: Boris Kriger¹² ¹ Information Physics Institute, Gosport, Hampshire, United Kingdom ² Institute of Integrative and Interdisciplinary Research, Toronto, Canada Description: This paper proposes that conflict escalation is not a property of individuals but a phase transition in coupled networks—occurring when the spectral radius of interpersonal coupling exceeds aggregate decay. Drawing on nonlinear dynamics and network science, we formalize organizational conflict as a transmissible quantity propagating through social structures, mathematically analogous to epidemic dynamics. The framework generates a central prediction: in certain network configurations, escalation becomes structurally inevitable regardless of who initiates. This removes moral personalization from conflict analysis and redirects attention to structural conditions. We derive testable predictions, propose empirical validation comparing network properties against individual personality traits, and specify quantitative falsification criteria. If network coupling predicts escalation better than personality variables, this challenges four decades of individualist organizational psychology and suggests that intervention should target structures rather than persons. The core equation treats conflict activation as governed by four terms: decay, violation response, resource modulation, and network coupling—composing established mechanisms into a system where their interaction produces emergent phase transitions not predictable from any mechanism alone. Keywords: phase transition, network dynamics, conflict escalation, spectral radius, coupled systems, organizational behavior, dynamical systems, nonlinear dynamics, threshold models

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it