Public Sector Volunteering: Committed Staff, Multiple Logics, and Contradictory Strategies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volunteers in government agencies are significant in the delivery of public services. The participation of these volunteers, however, is not straightforward and is restricted by conflicts between their needs and those of the agency. Although volunteer perspectives have been investigated, less is known about the experience of frontline staff. Using a qualitative study of a municipal ecology center in Canada, the author explores how a staff team committed to volunteers can develop and implement strategies that minimize volunteer involvement. Drawing on a central idea in institutional theory, institutional logics, the author identifies how the blending of elements from three main logics—professionalism, new public management, and community participation—-can create contradictions in the staff’s strategies toward volunteers. For those seeking greater participation of volunteers in public services, the findings suggest a need to recognize and assist frontline staff in navigating the institutional context that can shape volunteer—staff relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it