From Grameen Bank Micro-credit to Social Business to Social Economy-detail Proposal: A Case Study: Compare and Contrast Bangladesh and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, many research papers, articles and books have been written about social economy that give students, academicians, researchers and policy planners ideas about different types of social business organizations-cooperatives, nonprofit agencies, community economic development organizations, social enterprises etc. For example, Understanding the social economy: A Canadian perspective written by Quarter, J., Mook L., Armstrong A. (Eds.), (2009) and Quarter & et al (2010) is an example of a research paper that has documented different concepts of social economy and different types of social economic organizations and their diverse funding models, legal structures, functional frameworks and operational strategies, and challenges they face in the Canadian context [1-3]. In Bangladesh, different social economic organizations and models, funding models and frameworks exist, but there is no one place where this information can be found. Such a research study could help Bangladeshi social entrepreneurs, social economists, and private sector and public sector leaders to get different ideas. Moreover, the study will compare and contrast Canadian social economic organizations with Bangladeshi social economic organizations/initiatives, helping each respective country gain insight into new ideas, policies, and lessons in order to improve initiatives in both countries.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".