The Story Behind the Story of Collaborative Networks–Relationships Do Matter!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports data about the real story behind the current trend of mandated interorganizational collaboration of health and human service agencies. By means of qualitative design (N-22), public health managers were interviewed about the extent and nature of their collaborative efforts in the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children (HBHC) Program in Ontario, Canada. Using a conceptual framework of resource exchange theory, this study found that relational processes specifically: (a) previous relationships with other agencies and (b) interpersonal relations namely: informality, local community, open communication and resolving conflicts were the reasons for successful collaborations. Implications are directed toward: health and social planners, administrators, board members, funding bodies and policy-makers. The study offers new knowledge about a subject which has received minimal attention in the literature.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".