International Network of Co-operative Inquirers: Vision Document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear colleagues, INCInq started in 2013 and is a growing, dynamic and evolving network; our memberships, collaborators and partners are interested in researching topics in education, health and human services sectors. Each person and their insights are invaluable; they contribute unique perspectives to inquiries and help answer complex questions. INCInq members repeatedly are asked by interested parties for information regarding our network - specifically its vision, aims and purpose. In response to the requests, a subgroup comprising Dr Louise Whitaker and Dr Monica Short was formed; they planned a series of group vision meeting sessions that informed this foundational document. Other key people involved in the planning at the time were: Dr Erica Russ, Emma Pascoe, Mark Woolven, Robyn Fitzroy, Brenda Morris, Joanne Rose and Dr. Carmel Halton. On 1-3 February 2022, a series of vision-setting meetings were held; utilising a Program Logic Framework, which had been identified by Dr Louise Whitaker. The members established the aims, purpose and details listed in this document. With the continuing expansion of INCInq’s membership and collaborators, this document, in addition to our website, publications and meetings, facilitates the sharing of members' voices, the current vision of INCInq and our outputs regarding research. Using the program logic framework, INCInq’s vision was formulated with consideration of the impact, influence and translation of the outputs on the members of INCInq and the education, health and human services sectors. Our vision is three-fold: -Creating and nurturing supportive, safe and inclusive research environments and inquiry opportunities where questions can be answered and professional wisdom shared. -Educating people in the co-operative inquiry methodology and growing the network. -The generation and regeneration of researchers in industry and academia. This document presents this vision in detail. Yours sincerely, Emma Pascoe - INCInq industry partner and researcher, and, Dr Monica Short - academic and facilitator of INCInq. (On behalf of the International Network of Co-operative Inquirers)
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 | 0.102 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.197 |
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".