Social enterprise and effectiveness: a process typology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the lack of conceptualisation within the emerging field of social enterprise, the aim is to contribute to a better understanding of process effectiveness and potential. Design/methodology/approach The literature is drawn upon in providing a rationale for focusing on process, for selecting an appropriate organising framework, and for developing the typology and its key dimensions. Findings In proposing two polar opposite “ideal types” – one based on traditional concepts of non‐profit organisations and one that employs entrepreneurship as a strategy for achieving social aims (such as poverty and marginalisation) – the process components (activities, people and organising) and their interrelationship are explained. The dimensions of each component that facilitate or constrain entrepreneurship are conceptualised along a continuum, whereby a predisposition toward either end of the continuum forms the basis of classification. Upon assessing each process component, an overall determination of type can be made. Effectiveness – innovation in dealing with the challenges of social exclusion and marginalisation; increased self‐sufficiency and sustainability – depends upon the extent to which the process components are congruently configured to foster entrepreneurship. Originality/value With conceptualisation in its infancy, the emphasis to date has been on the similarities between social and commercial enterprises. Here, it has been focused on the key differences in process among social enterprise initiatives, thereby contributing new insights into social enterprising and its capacity for effectiveness. In explaining the impact of differing types on outcomes, practitioners and policymakers can develop more realistic expectations of what can be achieved.
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 | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".