New Public Governance, Social Services, and the Potential of Co-Located Nonprofit Centers for Improved Collaborations
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New Public Governance’s approach to public management seeks to both decrease costs and to increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of publicly-funded services. It further emphasizes effective, efficient collaborations among service providers, and well-functioning networks of service-providers connected with government funders. One conceivable vehicle to promote collaborations among nonprofits providing contracted services is to establish co-located nonprofit centers. In such a multi-tenant building, its owner or master lease-holder, which is usually a nonprofit, would recruit other nonprofits to rent space and use shared resources and/or services in its shared-space workplace. Typically, these workplaces are more affordable, stable, efficient, and of higher quality than their current offices. Also, nonprofit centers often enthusiastically promote cooperation and collaboration among their tenants. Several hundred such centers already exist in the United States and Canada. Two profiles of two nonprofit centers where co-located organizations collaboratively provide social services, as well as some survey results, are presented to illustrate that nonprofit center sites are indeed operational and could be a vehicle to help support collaborative goals 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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
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".