MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122993439 · doi:10.1111/padm.12060

GOVERNMENT FUNDING, EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS, AND WORK ORGANIZATION IN NON‐PROFIT COMMUNITY SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

2014· article· en· W2122993439 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOutsourcingRecessionBusinessWork (physics)Public sectorVulnerability (computing)Government (linguistics)Competition (biology)Industrial relationsLabour economicsPrivate sectorEconomicsPublic economicsEconomic growthMarketingManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides a comparative exploration of New Public Management ( NPM ) funding models on the non‐profit sectors in the UK and Australia, and the implications for services, employment conditions, and worker commitment. A degree of convergence exists around the principles of NPM in the two case studies, creating employment regimes of low pay, casualization, and work intensification. Enhanced vulnerability to pay cuts in the UK , and insecurity in Australia are explained by national differences in exposure to recession, industrial relations institutions, and competition, leading to diminishing worker commitment and raising important concerns for policy‐makers as benefits gained from outsourcing to non‐profits are eroded.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.290 · 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