A New Model: The role of the for-benefit corporation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the for-benefit corporate model could be central to Canada’s social innovation ecosystem. This paper investigates how legislated for-benefit models could pave the way for social enterprises to transform how Canadians address social needs and solve social problems. \n \nDesign thinking and systemic design inform the research framework. A four-phase design cycle guides the research, with phases dedicated to analogous inspiration, documenting results, conducting analysis, and considering implementation. \n \nA comparison of corporate features places Canada’s social enterprise activities in the context of the United Kingdom and the United States. In-person interviews, an online questionnaire, and a survey of social entrepreneurs indicate that respondents, while mindful of the risks posed by getting the model wrong, are overwhelmingly positive about the for-benefit form. Comments reflecting the input of 75 respondents illuminate how the for-benefit corporate model can meet Canada’s social enterprise aspirations. \n \nResearch results reveal barriers to moving forward with a for-benefit model in Canada and frame two problems associated with those barriers. The paper concludes with recommendations, intended to inform the design of a system that will move social entrepreneurs and social enterprise into the mainstream and support the next stage of social innovation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".