MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058849321 · doi:10.1177/0095399711413868

The Public–Private Partnership Enabling Field

2011· article· en· W2058849321 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration & Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal SocietyInter-American Development BankAsian Development Bank
KeywordsIntermediaryGeneral partnershipSalientOrganizational fieldField (mathematics)Public–private partnershipPublic administrationPrivate sectorPublic relationsThrough-the-lens meteringBusinessPolitical scienceRegional scienceSociologyLens (geology)Institutional theoryMarketingEngineeringFinanceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the emergence of a collection of diverse organizations designed to enable and govern infrastructure public–private partnerships (PPPs). The authors use the concept of organizational fields as a theoretical lens to investigate this panoply of organizations in three international contexts: British Columbia (Canada), Victoria (Australia), and South Africa. They observe a similar set of actors in each of these “PPP-enabling fields” but detect significant variation in the actor characteristics and the way that they are arranged on different projects. They theorize on a number of PPP-enabling fields aspects, including typical project arrangements, predominant field intermediaries, and salient institutional logics.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.189 · 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