MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974953755 · doi:10.1007/s11266-010-9134-8

Social Economy and Home Care Services in Quebec: Co-Production or Co-Construction?

2010· article· en· W1974953755 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Jetté, Yves Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipBusinessProduction (economics)Context (archaeology)Position (finance)De factoPublic sectorEconomyEconomicsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Third sector organizations have always played a significant role in the supply of home support services in Quebec, but this supply of services attained a crucial development phase in 1996, with the creation of 100 or so domestic help social economy enterprises (DHSEEs). These DHSEEs complemented the supply of public services delivered by the Quebec state, thus de facto taking part in the dynamics of co-production of services in the context of a mixed economy including the third sector. However, beyond that co-production, these enterprises also have to position themselves in a process of co-construction with the state, that is, in the joint, partnership-oriented construction of public policy, which provides the framework for their participation in services of public interest. Analysis of this public policy thus shows that the situation of DHSEEs in Quebec has swung, depending on the period, between co-production and various types of co-construction. A number of restrictive budget policies and subcontracting practices adopted by the Quebec state, along with tensions among DHSEE groups, curtailed the development of a genuine co-construction process during the 2000s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit OrganizationsSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207