New Public Governance and the Growth of Co-Located Nonprofit Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New Public Governance urges public services to collaborate with other relevant organizations in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of provided services. A relevant venue for such collaborations are co-located nonprofit centers, facilities that offer affordable, shared space workplaces for nonprofits and other social-benefit organizations. Many of these centers actively encourage collaboration among their tenants, especially in facilities organized to house related service-providers. They also provide comfortable space for meetings with public sector agencies and other funders. Such centers have been growing in the twenty-first century; nearly 400 have been identified in the United States and Canada (Nonprofit Centers Network 2015a), and they now house hundreds of various nonprofits organizations. This article describes these centers’ goals, history, and trends that encouraged their development, and aspects of their architecture and design. Examples of co-located nonprofit centers that provide an array of social services are presented, from the U.S. and Canada. In sum, these centers help advance the quality of life for clienteles and communities; and the collaborations and networks that they establish promote a key goal of New Public Governance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".