MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810073587 · doi:10.1007/s11266-018-0013-z

The Social Economy in Bolivia: Indigeneity, Solidarity, and Alternatives to Capitalism

2018· article· en· W2810073587 on OpenAlexaff
Gretchen Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationIndigenousCapitalismSolidarityCivil societySolidarity economySocial economyPolitical scienceDemocracySociologyConstitutionPolitical economyEconomyEconomic growthEconomic systemEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The social economy (SE) is alternatively conceptualized as a third sector (between the private and public sector); or by a typology of the organizations involved (such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations and social enterprises); or by the principles and values driving such activities (such as cooperation, mutual benefit, and democracy). One important consideration is often overlooked, namely that the SE emerges in different forms and with varied emphases depending on location. The SE is ‘place-based’—rooted in specific geographic, historical, cultural, and socioeconomic settings. This article explores the conceptualization of the SE in the Bolivian context from the perspective of government and civil society actors. The research took place after the country recognized the importance of the social, cooperative and community economy in their new constitution and found that the understanding of the SE in Bolivia relates strongly to the country’s indigenous and colonial heritage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit OrganizationsSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207