Attitudes Towards and Satisfaction with Cooperatives in Alberta: A Survey Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to assess the attitude towards, and satisfaction of residents of Alberta to their cooperatives. A mailed questionnaire to 1500 Alberta residents, with a 16% response rate is analyzed using Likert scales and the theory of planned behavior. The majority of the respondents are males, aged 45 or older, and earn incomes of $49, 000 or less. They are reasonably educated with a high school, college or university degrees. Results of the analysis also show a population that has a general positive attitude towards and is satisfied with their cooperatives as is reflected in assessing the performance of their cooperatives as good. Further analysis using the theory of planned behaviour show that respondents' attitude towards their cooperatives is the single most important and significant predictor of their patronization behaviour. However, there are still issues of concern to be addressed for current and past members. These include the inability of management to include members in the decision making process as well as issues of member training and education for the current members, and for the former members who left because they found the experience not rewarding or unable to use the services of their cooperatives when they moved.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".