A case study of the changing nature of a non-government organisation: a focus on disability and development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the changing nature, process and structure of an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) in response to internal and external factors. METHOD: This article is based on the interview data collected for the study which focussed on the experiences and perception of key informants on trends related to official development assistance, local governments' perspective of the NGO as a development partner and the NGO's perception of corporate and foundation support. Qualitative descriptive data analysis was used. RESULTS: Three main themes were developed with the interview data. Our analysis indicated shifts in the: (1) vision/nature (single to cross disability focus), (2) structure (building internal and external relationships) and (3) process (from ad hoc to systemic evaluations). CONCLUSIONS: These broader issues of vision, structure (relationships) and evaluation within and outside of the organisation, needs to be addressed to provide a foundation upon which funding initiatives can be developed. A closer relationship between funders and projects/programmes would do much to enhance the partnership and would ensure that the projects are able to measure and report results in a manner that is conducive to increasing support.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".