MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888591174 · doi:10.1177/1042258718801593

Successful Scaling in Social Franchising: The Case of Impact Hub

2018· article· en· W2888591174 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Giudici, James G. Combs, Benedetto Lorenzo Cannatelli, Brett R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFranchising Strategies and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsFranchiseSocial entrepreneurshipBusinessCorporate governanceSocial identity theoryValue (mathematics)Identity (music)Dual (grammatical number)Creating shared valueScale (ratio)Collaborative governancePublic relationsKnowledge managementMarketingEntrepreneurshipSociologySocial groupCorporate social responsibilityPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social entrepreneurs increasingly use franchising to scale social value. Tracey and Jarvis described how social franchising is like commercially-oriented franchising, but noted critical challenges arising from dual goals. We investigate a social franchisor that overcame these challenges and describe how the social mission became the source of business model innovation. We show that the social mission fostered a shared identity that guided the search for adaptations to the franchise model. The shared mission-driven identity created pressure toward (1) decentralized decision-making, (2) shared governance, and (3) a role for the franchisor as orchestrator of collaborative knowledge sharing among franchisees. Findings should help social franchisors avoid common pitfalls and suggest future research questions for social entrepreneurship and franchising scholars.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations62
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntrepreneurship Theory and PracticeSame topicFranchising Strategies and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207