Partnering for success : inter-organizational coordination and the older workers pilot project initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How is it that three labour market projects, each striving for the same objective, providing similar services and operating under comparable economic conditions could produce completely divergent outcomes? Canada's Older Worker Pilot Project Initiative (OWPPI) was a joint federal-provincial program introduced to reintegrate older displaced workers into employment. While the federal government set the parameters and provided the bulk of the funding, the provincial governments were responsible for overseeing projects' implementation. This was outsourced to organizations at the local level. This study focuses on three projects in three different provinces: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec. Despite their similarities, their results were distinct; one successful, one a failure, and one in the middle of the two. It argues that the key difference was the effectiveness of inter-organizational coordination that took place between the administrators at each level, from the federal to the provincial to the local. The relationship between the federal and provincial government in labour market policy is framed by a separate agreement with each province. This project explores the impact of that relationship on relations between project coordinators involved in the implementation of the OWPPI. It argues that the most successful project achieved its outcomes as a result of a strong working relationship between the provincial and local coordinators. The findings speak to the ability of the federal government to work in partnership with the provincial and local levels in an effort to address important policy problems such as Canada's ageing workforce.
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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".