MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Return on investment, social return on investment, and the business case for prevention

2019· book-chapter· en· W2942900386 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReturn on investmentBusiness caseTriple bottom lineStakeholderInvestment (military)Value (mathematics)Intervention (counseling)Adaptation (eye)BusinessInvestment valueRisk analysis (engineering)Actuarial sciencePublic economicsEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceMicroeconomicsProcess managementPolitical scienceManagementProduction (economics)Sustainable developmentPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes social return on investment (SROI) analysis as a method to calculate a wider concept of value of an intervention from each £1 invested, across the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, social, and environmental value. The method is underpinned by seven principles and can be considered a practical, stakeholder adaptation of cost–benefit analysis, although there are important differences between these two methods. This chapter outlines the method, providing an illustrative case study of applying SROI analysis to housing improvements to highlight each stage of the analysis and provide a worked example of the method. The merits and limitations of this relatively new method are also discussed, including reasons for the increased use of the approach for economic evaluation of PHIs. The role of SROI in producing a pragmatic business case for prevention is also discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.157 · 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