Popular Financial Reporting in Heritage and Cultural Hybrid Organizations: The First European Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research objective is to highlight how the Popular Financial Reporting applied to a cultural sector can increase transparency and accountability involving citizens and members. Moreover, through the tool, it is possible giving immediate feedback on the transformation of the inputs into outputs and the absorption of resources provided by the public through funding in cultural impact. The analysis is conducted through a "Circolo dei Lettori" case study; it is a hybrid organization. The legal form is of a private foundation with public participation. The initiative of the Piedmont Region (Italy), the "Circolo dei lettori" is a cultural center. The role of the "Circolo dei Lettori" is to make melting 'pot expressive and influenced by the hurricane of stories, signals, and emotions from the digital society and revitalization of culture with presentations and meetings. The use of the resources made available is strictly linked to the sustainability of the creative industries. Therefore, an instrument that guarantees transparency, participation, and control at the same time is essential. Very often, there is not a real perception of the resources made available and of the results obtained, leading to a removal of the financing partners and the stakeholders. The integration of the theory developed through reality, together with different currents of thought in conjugation with practical evidence, is essential to define knowledge better. In particular, the analysis highlights the characteristics of the Popular Financial Reporting used for the first time in the cultural sector to increase sustainability, transparency, and accountability.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".