MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234151681

A narrative construction of the organization by an external party: the nongovernmental organization narrative by the United Nations

2005· article· en· W2234151681 on OpenAlexaff
Çağrı Topal

Bibliographic record

VenueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeDiversity (politics)Political scienceReading (process)SociologyCivil societyPublic relationsInstitutionPublic administrationSocial scienceLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this paper is the narrative construction of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) by the United Nations. How the NGO is narrated by a legitimate institution like the UN is critical for both the sustainability of NGOs and the social benefit that is created by such organizations. This is because the allocation of resources to NGOs is directly affected by that narrative. The data come from the 20 speeches of the 54th annual conference (2001) titled as “NGOs today: Diversity of the Volunteer Experience ” at the UN headquarters. Organizations are social systems produced by the interactions of organizational members (Schwartzman, 1993). Stories or narratives are one way of member interaction and the resulting, ongoing, reconstruction. They define and redefine the organization and provide sensemaking resources for the members. Organizational narratives can be produced and diffused from within as well as imposed or communicated by an outside party. The external narrative may not directly determine the meaning of the organization but provide a specific framework to cultivate the meaning (Watson and Bargilea-Chiappini, 1998). The focus of this paper is the narrative construction of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) by the UN as an external party. “An NGO is a not-for-profit, voluntary citizens’

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University)Same topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207