Going Beyond Transactions: Frameworks for collaborating in systemic settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interdisciplinary collaboration is critical to addressing the extraordinary challenges that are of concern to the systemic design community. Given the importance of such collaboration, especially for ill-defined and unbounded problems, there is surprisingly little training or support to guide designers, academics, and practitioners in framing interdisciplinary collaboration. This lack of scaffolding means that collaborations more often resemble a contractual exchange than shared intellectual work. This paper presents and explores several illustrative examples and articulates two distinct modes of interdisciplinary collaboration: relational interdisciplinary collaboration and transactional interdisciplinary collaboration. A mode can be defined as a way of thinking, doing, communicating, and managing a collaboration. Analysis of these modes is approached through six attributes: the collaborative foundation, power relationships, language and means of expression, approaches to risk, products of the collaboration, and the potential for transformative outcomes. These attributes help distinguish between the two modes and serve to guide organisations in ways to construct and support more effective cultures of collaboration.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".