Local Currency Loans and Grants: Comparative Case Studies of Ithaca HOURS and Calgary Dollars
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
This study examines the rationale(s) that recipients have for participating in HOURS-based local currency loan and grant programs. Case studies, based on interviews of both loan and grant recipients and system coordinators, of Ithaca HOURS and Calgary Dollars local currency systems (LCSs) are presented here. Biggart and Delbridge’s (2004) Systems of Exchange typology, which allows for both instrumental (“means calculated”) and substantive (“ends calculated”) bases of rational economic action, provides the theoretical framework for this study. Insight into the rationales that individuals have for seeking a loan or grant can aid HOURS-based LCS coordinators in the development and promotion of these programs. This study also introduces local currency loans and grants to the social science community while demonstrating the applicability of Biggart and Delbridge’s (2004) typology to an understanding of LCSs and similar economic exchange networks characterized by both instrumental and substantive rationales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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