MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297464258 · doi:10.1080/01900692.2018.1433206

Social Impact Bonds: Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring

2018· article· en· W2297464258 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxpayerRecidivismGeneral partnershipBondBusinessUnemploymentPublic economicsPrivate sectorPsychological interventionCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeFinanceEconomicsPublic relationsEconomic growthPolitical scienceCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional approaches to public policy increasingly fail to resolve social challenges, particularly in the field of criminal justice. High rates of juvenile recidivism, for example, are often linked to inequality in education and persistent, long-term unemployment—factors which, while complex, are nonetheless conducive to preventative strategies.Social impact bonds (SIBs) are “pay-for-success” programs that attract private-sector, upfront funding for social interventions. If the program achieves agreed targets, taxpayer funds repay the investor. If the program fails to meet agreed targets, investors take the loss.This innovative form of social finance through public–private partnership has helped spur efficiencies and improvements in the provision and outcomes of criminal justice services. However, the success of a SIB depends on careful implementation, evaluation, and monitoring.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.297 · 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