Civil society organizations and social innovation. How and to what extent are they influencing social and political change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to understand how civil society organizations (CSOs) perform and influence public arenas. The focus of this paper is the transformative scope of social innovation initiatives promoted by CSOsin two public arenas in Brazil: the fight against electoral corruption and the protection of children and adolescents’ rights. The research consisted of three stages: 1) controversy mapping to understand the configuration ofthese public arenas and compare the trajectories of the public problems studied; 2) observation of the “field of experience” of some CSOs that perform in these arenas; and 3) analysis of “political grammars” produced in public arenas, connecting them to the performance of the CSOs analysed. The results reveal how social innovation emerges, develops and is disseminated in the public arenas studied and highlights the similarities and differences between the two cases, discussing the practices and role of CSOs in these processes. As conclusions, the study indicates that social innovation initiatives promoted by CSOs are influenced by and have an effect on the “political culture” in the public arenas. Additionally, this work states that the regime of CSOs’ engagement in the public sphere and their performance have consequences in terms of influence on social and political changes. In the cases studied, when CSOs go beyond the logic of coproduction of public services and engage in “public inquiry” processes, their capacity to inspire social transformation seems to be enhanced.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".