MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038278405 · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-01-2020-0038

Integration of non-financial benefits: a systematic review for engaged scholars

2020· review· en· W3038278405 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Andrée Caron, Camélia Radu, Nathalie Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in Business · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipOriginalityCategorizationValue (mathematics)SociologyOpenness to experienceKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEpistemologyPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceEngineeringQualitative researchSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The complexity of the integration of non-financial benefits (NFB) in major infrastructure projects (MIP) engenders the formulation of networked knowledge between researchers and practitioners. The authors’ research question is as follows: To what extent does scientific knowledge about the integration of NFB into MIP support engaged scholarship or co-construction of knowledge between researchers and practitioners? Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a review of literature published in academic journals on the integration of NFB in MIP. Nearly 300 papers are analysed in depth, based on categories (aspects and sub-aspects) inspired from engaged scholarship and paradoxical participation approaches. The culture of collaboration and the notion of boundary objects are the two main aspects of this categorization of journal papers. Findings First, research on the integration of NFB into MIP is either project-oriented or society-oriented but in a larger proportion for society-oriented. Second, a lot of researches favour an analytic over a holistic approach, despite their openness to dialogue with practitioners through the complexity and conflict. Practical implications It contributes to the theorization of the engaged scholarship. It also provides insights about research avenues to be exploited where these aspects were not sufficiently exploited, as it is often the case with sustainability, for a better collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Linking the culture of collaboration, boundary objects and knowledge co-creation in the engaged scholarship setting encourages a better understanding of the needs (problem to be resolved) of practitioners, by themselves and the researchers. Originality/value The systematic review was conducted in parallel with the organization of two workshops with participants concerned by the integration of NFB into MIP. The paper identified four clusters from their level of compatibility with engaged scholarship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0390.028
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in BusinessSame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207