MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981414166 · doi:10.1177/0899764008314595

Altruistic by Association, Altruistic for Advantage? Buying Groups and Small Firm Community Involvement

2008· article· en· W1981414166 on OpenAlexaff
Reginald A. Litz, Sridhar Samu

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableAssociation (psychology)Scope (computer science)Set (abstract data type)MarketingAffect (linguistics)Intersection (aeronautics)Altruism (biology)BusinessSmall businessScale (ratio)Social psychologyPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does buying group membership affect small firm community involvement, and if it does, is there a further effect, in particular as it concerns small firm performance? This article addresses this intersection of issues. After advancing a set of hypotheses linking categorical and continuous dimensions of buying group activity to community involvement, this article also tests hypotheses of enlightened self-interest concerning the relationship between community involvement and firm performance. The article then describes a study of more than 300 small retail hardware stores. The findings show buying group membership being positively related to both scale and scope of community involvement. The authors also report a complex set of findings concerning the interaction of community involvement and buying group membership with small firm performance. The article concludes by reflecting on what these findings suggest for further work in small firm philanthropy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlySame topicFamily Business Performance and SuccessionFrench-language works237,207