MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120671895 · doi:10.22230/cjnser.2013v4n1a133

Resource-Based View (RBV) of Unincorporated Social Economy Organizations

2013· article· en· W2120671895 on OpenAlex
Kunle Akingbola

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBricolagePolitical scienceSocial economyHumanitiesEconomyManagementEconomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article examines three related questions about unincorporated social economy organizations (USEOs): What are the characteristics of these social economy organizations? What is the unique bundle of resources that gives rise to and sustains their operations? Is there evidence of bricolage in these organizations? The findings suggest that USEOs are driven foremost by a social mission. USEOs provide diverse services and products including economic and specialized social activities, which are integral to the social fabric of society. The results also show that they combine and leverage two core resources – social capital and human capital – to support the operations of their organizations. Moreover they appear to draw on whatever resources are at their disposal to support the activities of the organization. This suggests that USEOs are involved in bricolage activities, which could explain the longevity of many of the organizations. RÉSUMÉ Cet article répond à trois questions étroitement liées sur les organismes d’économie sociale non constitués en société : Quelles sont les caractéristiques de ces organismes? Quelles sont les ressources particulières qui leur permettent de fonctionner? Ces organismes ont-ils recours au bricolage (dans le sens que Claude Lévi-Strauss prête à ce mot)? Les résultats indiquent qu’une mission sociale est ce qui motive les organismes d’économie sociale non enregistrés. Ces derniers fournissent une diversité de produits et services, y compris des activités économiques et sociales spécialisées qui sont essentielles pour la solidarité sociale. Les résultats montrent aussi que ces organismes combinent deux ressources clés – le capital social et le capital humain – afin d’appuyer le bon fonctionnement de leurs organisations. En outre, pour ce faire, ils ont apparemment recours à toute ressource qui soit à leur portée. Cette dernière pratique indique que les organismes d’économie sociale non constitués en société mènent vraisemblablement des activités de bricolage, ce qui pourrait expliquer pourquoi bon nombre de leurs organisations ont si longue vie.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.261 · 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