MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033872349 · doi:10.1007/s11266-005-9146-y

Strategic Management and Change in High Dependency Environments: The Case of a Philanthropic Organization

2005· article· en· W2033872349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Taı̈eb Hafsi, Howard Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyDependency (UML)BusinessStrategic planningProcess managementStrategic managementOrganizational architectureAdaptation (eye)Set (abstract data type)Knowledge managementOperations managementMarketingComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the basis of a detailed, in-depth study of the operations and strategic decision-making of Centraide, a charitable organization in Greater Montreal, this paper suggests that dependency on the environment can be a stimulus to organizational adaptation. Two major changes over a 10-year period are studied to show that strategic management in high dependency situations requires a continual attention to the organization's relationships and interactions with the forces in its environment, and a continuous management of the process by which change takes place. The basic position advanced is that: strategy in philanthropic organizations is more effective in ensuring survival and growth when the search for autonomy is seen as irrelevant and when dependence is seen as an unavoidable fact that should shape behavior. A set of propositions helps conceptualize the findings and is offered as a guide for further research.

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)0.004
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit OrganizationsSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207