MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290861754

Cooperative Business Development: Winnipeg Pilot Project Summative Evaluation Report

2011· article· en· W2290861754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jared G. Carlberg, Neil Loughran, Russ Rothney

Bibliographic record

VenueWinnSpace (University of Winnipeg) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentBusiness developmentEngineering managementBusinessEngineeringOperations managementProcess managementManagementMarketingFormative assessmentSociologyEconomicsPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is an evaluation of the Cooperative Business Development: Winnipeg Pilot Project. The primary goal of the Project was to help facilitate the evolution of co-operative businesses, including creation, expansion, re-development and stabilization. The essence of the Project model was to facilitate business self-assessments and then to facilitate actions intended to plug capacity gaps. Special attention was paid to human capacity, assessed in terms of zeal, skill and knowledge, in relation to the different aspects of particular businesses. Technical support providers and mentors were used to cultivate increases in internal capacity. They were drawn from co-operatives, other community based businesses, business support agencies, individuals with business experience, and the Pilot’s own part- time staff. The object was to facilitate commercial self-reliance within co-operative, community-oriented businesses. The Pilot also attempted to encourage co-operatives and other community-oriented businesses to collaborate in sharing busin

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWinnSpace (University of Winnipeg)Same topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207