The Ontario Christian Gleaners: A Case Study of a Stakeholder-Engaged Organizational Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Christian Gleaners (OCG) gathers, dries, and distributes produce destined to be waste and creates value by processing dried soup mixes and fruit snacks using volunteer labour. This case study examines the roles of relationships in the OCGs strategy, operations, and management using a strategic management framework that incorporates value creation and trading. Data was collected from secondary sources, site visits, and interviews. The case examines how relationships with primary and secondary stakeholders are managed to create value. Primary stakeholders are individuals, groups, and organizations with formal, regular, contractual or transactional relationships with an organization. At OCG they include donors of vegetables and fruit, supplies like pails, and services like free waste tipping; communities that receive the dried soups, fruits, shipping barrels, and pails; mission and relief organizations that raise funding and distribute the food and the volunteers who donate their time. Secondary stakeholders do not have regular relationships with an organization but may be affected by its actions or affect its actions indirectly through their activities in the market or society. At OCG secondary stakeholders include those who receive soup; interest groups such as food businesses, consumer or environmental organizations; the earth that supplies the agricultural and food resources; the media; the government that oversees the charitable status requirements and food safety legislation; food banks and others who have similar missions to feed the hungry; and finally educational, social, and health institutions who have goals that intersect with those of the OCG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".