A Scoping Review of Accountability in Social Entrepreneurship
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
The aim of this article is to do a scoping review of accountability in the context of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship is becoming an important business model, while the concept of accountability is prevalent in today’s environment. The scoping review is a type of literature search with certain important distinctions from a literature review. Systematically, the scoping review explores the literature from a relevance viewpoint rather than by evaluating the quality of the research. Then the data are mapped or charted to identify key themes and gaps in the literature. We observe that accountability in social entrepreneurship is viewed and studied in three different ways: as a relationship between parties, as an outcome, or as a predictor variable. We also observe that most of the research is done in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Finally we observe that research methodologies utilized are primarily based around qualitative methods or conceptual descriptions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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