MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W217480685 · doi:10.15173/mjc.v6i0.249

The Relationship between Public Relations and Marketing in the Nonprofit Sector: The Case of Hamilton Health Sciences and Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation

2010· article· en· W217480685 on OpenAlex
Heather Pullen

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe McMaster Journal of Communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Public healthBiomedical sciencesPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsSocial scienceMedicineNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study examines, from the perspective of the non-profit sector, the long-standing turf war between public relations and marketing. The researcher evaluated perceptions about different functional roles and organizational models in the relationship between (1) public relations practitioners working for a large health care organization in Ontario, and (2) marketing staff working for a separate and distinct foundation that raises money for the health care organization. Interviews with three key leaders were conducted and both archival records and relevant documents were reviewed. The results showed that while tension is felt and disagreements occur, leaders from both groups agreed that compromise and cooperation are vital to the organization's success. The CEO of the health care organization believed that the best way to avoid or at least minimize rivalries is to have controls in place to manage their relationship – controls such as formal charters.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.275 · 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