MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248725634 · doi:10.46692/9781447353805.002

What is Social Innovation and How is it Done?

2019· other· en· W4248725634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial innovationData scienceSociologyEconomic geographyKnowledge managementGeographyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is taken to be self-evident. Introduction The first two decades of the 21st century brought burgeoning interest in social innovation – its nature, needs, possibilities and dilemmas. There were new policies; funds; research studies; accelerators; emerging fields around design, the maker movement, open data and the sharing economy, climate transition and social justice; and action involving many hundreds of thousands of people, from Canada to China, Sweden to South Africa, with benefits reaching billions. This effervescence marked a shift in perception of both ends and means. It grew out of a recognition that too much innovation was being directed to the wrong ends – to warfare and killing; to the needs of the rich; or to trivial or harmful purposes. Too many of the world's most creative brains were working on the wrong tasks, while the world's most urgent needs were left underserved. Just as important was a shift in thinking about means: a recognition that innovation had become too focused on hardware and things, and that it was far too much an elite preoccupation, for the well-educated and well-connected in big cities, with far too little role for the rest in making and shaping. So, attention turned to how to make innovation more inclusive; how to tap into household innovators; civil society; and the creativity of communities. In both respects social innovation fed off a widespread desire of people to take more control of their lives and their futures and a dissatisfaction with existing institutions. As I show later in this book, this is a story in progress, and still in its early stages. But it has allowed us to see the past, the present and the future in a quite different light. The heritage of social innovation Much of what we take for granted in social life began as radical innovation, the work of dreamers not content just to dream. A century ago few believed that ordinary people could be trusted to drive cars at high speed; the idea of a national health service freely available to all was seen as absurdly utopian; the concept of a ‘kindergarten’ was still considered revolutionary; and in 1900 only one country had given women the vote.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207