Volunteering – An Efficient Collaborative Practice for the Local Communities Sustainability. Empirical Study
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
The scientific research we have conducted concerns volunteering as a collaborative practice and as a basis for the sustainable development of local communities. Identifying the suitable practices capable of transforming a group of individuals into a prosperous and sustainable collaborative community has became our priority concern. Therefore, the main objective of the study was outlined as a response to the question: “which are the tangible and intangible effects of the acts and facts of the collaboration identified in the communities where the participants in the study came from?”. The answer was prefigured as the outcome of an exploratory analysis that also revealed to us the motivation, satisfaction and results obtained by the participants in the survey, as a consequence of their personal experience in relation to their community. The quantitative analysis of collected data was performed in IBM SPSS software and the qualitative analysis with the Atlas Ti application. Despite the poverty of information sources in the field, our exploratory research has succeeded in highlighting the role of volunteering as a factor of sustainable social cohesion and practice in local communities. And this is at least one of our reasons useful to continue our theoretical and applied researches related to the emergence and sustainable development of collaborative communities.Keywords: exploratory analysis; collaborative community; sustainability; social economy enterprise; social innovation
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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