MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205338697 · doi:10.29173/cjnser.2021v12n2a551

Editorial: Gratitude for Nonprofit and Social Economy Studies

2021· editorial· en· W4205338697 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laurie Mook, Marco Alberio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGratitudeNonprofit sectorEconomicsSociologyClassical economicsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La publication phare de l'Association de recherche sur les organismes sans but lucratif et l'économie sociale (ARES), la Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l'économie sociale a été bâtie sur les fondements et les valeurs de l'économie sociale, y compris un accès libre, un engagement envers le bilinguisme, et une communauté accueillante.Cette communauté continue à grandir, signalant ainsi la force de la mise en relation des universitaires et praticiens dans notre domaine.Nous sommes particulièrement enthousiastes à l'égard des nouveaux chercheurs suivant cette tradition et de la recherche de pointe qu'ils sont en train de faire.Nous remercions tous ceux et celles qui ont collaboré à cette revue et contribué à ce domaine au fil des années.Dans ce numéro, vous retrouverez trois articles dans la section « Perspectives » ainsi que cinq articles de recherche évalués par les pairs.Dans le premier des trois articles « Perspectives », John R. Whitman pose la question suivante dans le contexte d'une pandémie persistante : « Ce choc a-t-il éveillé les OSBL sur As the premier journal of the Association of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSER), the Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research was built on the foundations and values of the social economy, with open access, a commitment to bilingualism, and a welcoming community.This community continues to grow, a great testament to the strength of the connection between academic and practitioner scholars in our field.We are especially excited about the entry of new scholars to this tradition and the cutting-edge research they are producing.Many thanks to all of the contributors to the journal and to the field over the years.In this issue, you will find three Perspectives pieces and five peer-reviewed Research articles.In the first of the three articles in the Perspectives section, John R. Whitman asks the following question in light of the ongoing pandemic, "Has this shock provided Editorial / Éditorial (Autumn / automne

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0140.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy researchSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207