Expanding the scope of paradox scholarship on social enterprise: the case for (re)introducing worker cooperatives
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
Over the past decade, scholars have argued for using a paradox perspective as a provocative and insightful lens for understanding social enterprises. This article addresses two gaps in this burgeoning literature. First, it expands the focus on social enterprises to include worker cooperatives, which are often overlooked but are highly relevant to this area of study. Worker cooperatives are unique among social enterprises due to their foundational principles: worker-ownership, worker-control and worker-benefit. Due to their dual nature as both a democratic association and an economic enterprise, the relationship between the cooperative’s social mission and its business venture is mutually constitutive and inescapable. Second, this article calls for paradox scholarship on social enterprise to include the study of paradoxical tensions other than the conspicuous tension between financial and social performance. This article suggests broadening this focus to include the tensions between communality and individuality, hierarchy and democracy, and between ‘staying alternative’ and ‘going mainstream’. Overall, this article seeks to construct a stronger theoretical basis on which to build future paradox research on alternatives to the dominant economic paradigm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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