Integration in an Explanatory Sequential Design Mixed-Methods Study: The Case of a Secondary Cooperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This single case study explored the experience and practice of Rochdale’s 6th cooperative principle by the Union of Church-based Co-operatives in the Philippines to understand its relevance to the globalized co-operative movement. The findings suggest that the union has systematically implemented programs and services to meet its objectives to unite and strengthen the members. The study offers three policy directions and measures focused and targeted toward the issues that could have hampered a more effective performance. First, it needs to push for a broader and more diverse funding base to enhance its capacity to influence and meet its members' needs. Second, it needs to take bold steps to encourage unresponsive officers to invest their physical and mental energy at a more desirable level. Third, it needs to formulate strategies and enhanced packages to increase the quantity and quality of its membership. The study adds to the limited literature on the viability and advantage of cooperation among primary cooperatives. It concludes by suggesting some potential avenues for future research on collaboration among co-operatives. Keywords: case study, church-based co-ops, co-operative principles, group cohesion, performance level, types of co-operatives
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 | 0.062 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".