Social Value as a Mechanism for Linking Public Administrators with Society: Identifying the Meaning, Forms and Process of Social Value Creation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite public/private/third sector organisations creating and demonstrating the social value of their interventions, they face challenges in understanding and executing the process of social value creation, due to both the lack of definition and theoretically embedded explanatory models of social value. This article seeks to fill this gap by defining social value and identifying the process involved in social value creation from a Weberian standpoint of social action, class and power. Nine resource capitals were identified that contribute to the creation of social value in society: social, ethical, cultural, human/intellectual, physical, economic/financial, environmental/natural, religious, and political. The research utilises Q-methodology to develop a typology of social value and semi-structured interviews to understand the process of social value creation. The results reveal four-types of social value: action-driven, outcomes-driven, sustainability-driven and pluralism-driven, which can be derived through individual/collaborative and resource capitals-driven processes. An integrated framework for social value creation, embedded within a Weberian theoretical framework, is presented to assist policy-makers to commission social value, and public/private/third sector organisations to deliver social value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it