Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this presentation, we introduce the concept of a systemic mirror: an object or experience that reflects a perspective on stakeholders within systems, the role they play in that system, and the relationship they hold with other stakeholders. Systemic mirrors can be used to help people reflect on mental models of how they view the system they are part of and the role that they play in that system. Donella Meadows suggested that mental models and associated paradigms are a strong leverage point from which system structures emerge. As such, a possible way to achieve the desired system change is to confront people with their mental models so they can start changing systems from within. An often-used format to make people aware of those systems is system visualisation. However, system visualisations present limitations when it comes to communication with system stakeholders. We argue that empathetic and experiential qualities are essential for effective systemic mirroring and that the format of systemic mirrors needs to be aligned with their context of use. We will illustrate this concept by means of a case in which change was desired within a healthcare system around children with special needs and their parents. The systemic mirror designed for this case is a children’s book which presents a unique systemic perspective to stakeholders and proved effective in its empathetic qualities. We would like to conclude the presentation with a dialogue about the characteristics of effective systemic mirrors.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".