MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079802091 · doi:10.1002/meet.2008.1450450323

Collaboration networks in a public service model: Dimensions of effectiveness in theory and in practice

2008· article· en· W2079802091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara Schultz‐Jones, Nancy Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)Public relationsSocial network analysisSocial network (sociolinguistics)SociologyOrganizational network analysisKnowledge managementRealization (probability)Computer scienceManagement scienceBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringMarketingWorld Wide WebSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present both researcher and practitioner responses to the results of a 2007 research study originally designed to apply social network theory to the Neighborhood Integrated Service Teams (NIST). The municipal government for the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada designed and implemented the model in 1995 to strengthen community partnerships by connecting city services to the neighborhoods. They defined program effectiveness in terms of reduced citizen problems, with more than a 60% decrease of complaints to City Council by citizens since inception. Social network analysis mapped the relationships of network members and social network theory was applied to the results. Sociograms represent the interactions across and within the networks. The results and analysis demonstrated the pattern of information flows and the behavior of collaboration across the networks. These results were presented to the full NIST membership, NIST coordinator and City Manager for feedback. The research results demonstrate that collaboration network effectiveness extends beyond the realization of one organizational goal, encompassing contextual benefits unrecognized without an examination of the information environment. The combination of researcher and practitioner perspectives provides a more complete view of the information environments within collaboration networks and informs a broader consideration of network effectiveness dimensions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207