Social Enterprise in Quebec: Understanding Their "Institutional Footprint"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how the social enterprise concept is used in Québec. Focusing on the historical, institutional, and current conceptual understanding of the social economy in Québec, it explores the related definitions, terminology, and typologies currently in use. The term “social enterprise” is near absent in Québec, mainly due to the highly recognized notion of social economy. However, not all Québec enterprises that pursue social goals fit into the social economy institutional definition. This article proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the modalities of Québec’s field of social economy and other social purpose enterprises. It suggests that “social enterprises” in Québec are those that participate in the social purposes of the social economy without sharing the core and institutionalized characteristics of social economy enterprises.Cet article explore l’usage du terme « entreprise sociale » au Québec. Se basant sur des aspects historiques, institutionnels et conceptuels, l’article explore les définitions et les typologies qui ont cours aujourd’hui. L’expression « entreprise sociale » est rarement mentionnée, dû à la forte reconnaissance de l’économie sociale. Toutefois, il existe des entreprises au Québec qui, tout en poursuivant des objectifs sociaux, ne correspondent pas à la définition institutionnelle de l’économie sociale. La principale contribution de cet article est de proposer un cadre conceptuel pour comprendre le champ de l’économie sociale et des autres entreprises à finalité sociale. Il suggère que les « entreprises sociales » sont celles qui participent aux objectifs sociaux de l’économie sociale mais qui n’en ont pas les caractéristiques institutionnelles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".