Charitable Organizations in New Brunswick (Canada): Understanding the Landscape in Human Services Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the parameters of service provision between the nonprofit sector and the state have shifted with the emergence of the post welfare state era. While some recent national-level studies have contributed to our knowledge of this largely under-researched sector, less is known about these organizations at the regional and provincial levels. At this level, some basic questions about the nature and capacity of the sector must be answered before one can think about the proper role these agencies can or should play in the current mixed-economy of care. With New Brunswick as the study area, this research examines a specific sub-set of organizations engaged in the provision of services to individuals and populations in need: registered charitable organizations involved in human services (i.e., social services and nonhospital health services). The results are derived from a provincial survey of these organizations which explores key dimensions such as: activities, governance, accountability, location, financial resources, gender representation, and service delivery challenges. The initial results of a socio-geographic analysis of this data are also presented, which begin to provide a better understanding of the context and “landscape” of human service delivery in New Brunswick.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".