Hi Claire.
My 85k words are on driving change via projects, not meetings 
Meetings do ‘pop-up’ in lots of places but are a component not the theme.
I’m happy for people to break things out to discuss? The above expresses ideas that I want to build into practitioner training. Its purpose was to allow me to explore what I believe and Kelvin agreed with. Bias rich! It is not a researched piece in any way that I expect folk here would recognise. I have not capability or aspiration to adopt an academic approach, nor I believe the need for my purposes.
My interest is to meld ideas from many sources with my own experience and seek to pass it on to others to use in the work-place. I trawl for the plausible expressed (or re-expressible) as useful. I’m happy to let others be rigorous. I shared here because Christoph’s excellent (rigorous etc) insight is part of the content.
I think that is your “foremost” covered?
In my experience mixed meetings are harder that purely virtual. IMHO most mixed meetings havethe remote community on voice only. In a recent 95% virtual project I found people only used video if I did and then still often not. I suggest the ability of the host and/or participants to moderate and be inclusive is the key factor. I’ve run training (1-m) and workshops (m-m) and meetings in both 100% F2Fm 100% virtual and mixed. Each benefits from an evolving set of techniques. I find strong folk in audio only meetings will break-in and I find many facilitators will frequently check by name and in general for waiting participation.
my link to my references includes several references and links to papers on boundary spanning. I guess you also know actor network theory and complex adaptive systems thinking, 6-degrees of separation, weak ties, bounded rationality and requisite variety? I think these are all juxtaposed to the topic of achieving and i think meetings (in my context) are about enabling targeted achievements
Ciao
PS how is that clever quoting above done?