Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In recent years the term social innovation has become widely used by policy makers, yet important ambiguities remain. One of these concerns what has been called the paradox of embedded agency – how social innovators conceive of something new when working with existing social institutions. So far few writers have considered whether historical examples can, with benefit of hindsight, shed light on the relationships between social innovators and social institutions. This paper considers the example of Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, creator of rural credit unions and agricultural co‐operatives in 19th‐century Germany. Raiffeisen was a social conservative who worked in many ways within existing social institutions. At the same time, his desire to meet social needs drove him to create new forms of action and organization that resulted in social innovation. Raiffeisen's process of invention shows that social innovation, particularly in transitional eras like his, need not be a matter of using logical‐deductive processes to address a social need, but may depend critically on values, will, a readiness to experiment, and an ability to find allies. These qualities enabled Raiffeisen to break through existing institutions to do something fundamentally new, and they may be qualities that provide new focus for social‐innovation research and policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".