MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252715996 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14636208

Competition or collaboration? Preliminary results of a survey of women’s voluntary organizations

2021· preprint· en· W4252715996 on OpenAlexaffabout
Agnes Meinhard, Mary K. Foster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Voluntary associationTurnoverPoliticsVoluntary sectorIdeal (ethics)Public relationsPolitical scienceBusinessManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of current social, political and economic changes on women’s voluntary organizations. Thirty eight leaders of women’s voluntary organizations from across Canada were interviewed. Our findings show that although there is a sense of increased competition for scarce dollars, the favoured solutions do not focus on competitive strategies. Rather, collaboration is held up as the ideal. Keywords: CVSS, Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Working Paper Series,TRSM, Ted Rogers School of Management Citation:

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207