Public Agencies and Collaborative Management Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance among administrative professionals to participatory approaches is analyzed by means of a case study involving the implementation of community-based forest management (CBFM) in India. The model consists of two dimensions of attitudinal resistance to change—disapproval of CBFM regime by forest managers (a) at individual level and (b) at organizational level—and four categories of factors influencing resistance: personality traits, organizational factors, external environmental factors, and socialization factors. The model is empirically tested using the perceptions of forest managers working in state Forest Departments of four states in India. The empirical findings are used to suggest strengthening of organization and public administration theories on four aspects and to suggest some specific measures to deal with the attitudinal inertia of public administrators.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".