Hybridity and integration in local collective action: an analytical framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can an integrated territorial approach successfully do away with the silo structure that marks public action through the hybridisation of sectoral logics? Drawing from various strands of research, as well as an assessment of multiple studies on the impact of integrated territorial approaches on local social development, this article develops an analytical framework to address this question. We argue that integration takes place according to four regimes, whose dynamics range from the simple juxtaposition of sectoral organisations to a hybridisation of their organisational logics. The regimes we identify are operational networking, interstitial effervescence, collaborative accommodation and institutional convergence. Each emerges from an interaction between the specific dynamics of each experience in a given milieu and supra-local socio-institutional processes, which generate new ways of conceiving and organising the coordination of public and collective action at the local level. Points for practitioners This article puts into perspective the virtues of the integrated approach as an antidote to public administration silos. An integrated approach to local action only produces the expected effects if each public agency agrees to transform its organisational culture and to direct its action according to the evolution of local ecosystem processes of change in the milieu as a whole.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".