MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908994442 · doi:10.15402/esj.v4i2.61751

Funding Social Innovation in Canada: A Conversation with Stephen Huddart and Chad Lubelsky of the McConnell Foundation

2019· article· en· W2908994442 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Peacock, Stephen Huddart, Chad Lubelsky

Bibliographic record

VenueEngaged Scholar Journal Community-Engaged Research Teaching and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationFoundation (evidence)SupporterService-learningSociologyScope (computer science)Social workPolitical scienceManagementPublic administrationPublic relationsPedagogyLawHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-editor of this issue David Peacock interviews Stephen Huddart (President and CEO) and Chad Lubelsky (Program Director) of the McConnell Foundation, a historic supporter of postsecondary education across Canada. McConnell’s investments in community service-learning, social entrepreneurial and innovation activities and social infrastructure programs and dialogues have made them a significant partner for many Canadian higher education institutions. Yet not all community-campus engagement scholars and practitioners, and Engaged Scholar readers, may have heard McConnell articulate for itself its aims and goals for Canadian higher education and society. This interview canvasses the scope of McConnell’s work and interests in community-campus engagement, and sheds light on the actions of an influential private actor in the postsecondary sector.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0450.015
Scholarly communication0.0180.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0200.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngaged Scholar Journal Community-Engaged Research Teaching and LearningSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207