MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048642515 · doi:10.1177/0899764005278034

Nonprofits and the Job Retention of Former Welfare Clients

2005· article· en· W2048642515 on OpenAlexaff
Felice Davidson Perlmutter, John R. Deckop, Alison M. Konrad, Joshua L. Freely

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationWelfareRetention ManagementBusinessEmployee retentionLabour economicsPublic sectorPublic economicsPublic relationsEconomicsMarketingPolitical scienceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legislation has shifted power and authority for welfare policies and programs to the states, with few federal guidelines. However, the intent was clearly to move people from welfare to work. Nonprofit organizations have played a major role in providing jobs for this population, along with the public and for-profit sectors. A critical issue is what nonprofits and other employers, through their human resource (HR) practices, can do to enhance the job retention of former welfare clients. The authors conducted a large-scale empirical study that examined effects of a broad range of HR practices associated with the retention of welfare clients in the nonprofit, for-profit, and public sectors. Results indicate that job retention is higher in the nonprofit sector compared to the others, and that this retention may be a result of HR practices that emphasize investment in and commitment to employees. Implications for public policy are also presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207