MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975499998 · doi:10.1108/eemcs-01-2014-0014

Coordinating cross-sector partnerships for water provision in Malawi

2015· article· en· W1975499998 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Soublière, Charlotte Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald Emerging Markets Case Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderStakeholder analysisPublic relationsStakeholder managementBusinessPublic sectorDecentralizationGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject area Public sector management, stakeholder management, collaboration and strategy. Study level/applicability Undergraduate (final-year) or master's-level students (Master in Public Administration, Master in Management). Designed for courses in nonprofit management, public administration and/or international development. Can also be used in any course, such as strategic management, sustainable development or corporate social responsibility, that covers stakeholder theory, or stakeholder management as a topic. Case overview Decentralization has changed the way core services are delivered to local populations in sub-Saharan Africa. This in turn has forced nongovernmental organizations, international aid agencies, corporations and other development partners to change the way they engage with government in their shared efforts to help improve the living conditions of people living under the threshold of poverty in this and other parts of the world. This modular ethnographic teaching case uses the specific example of the water sector in Malawi to help highlight the complexity of multiple stakeholder relations in an international development context. Expected learning outcomes Upon completion of this case, students should be able to: identify and understand the different goals and issues that individual stakeholders in cross-sector partnerships are dealing with; identify and understand the power/control dynamics at play in these relationships; analyse the advantages and disadvantages associated with different ways of coordinating multi-stakeholder partnerships; and develop recommendations for structuring multi-stakeholder relationships in developing and emerging markets that balance efficient service provision with concern for individual stakeholder priorities. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald Emerging Markets Case StudiesSame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207