The role of social capital: bridging, bonding or both?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[First paragraph of Introduction] : Nonprofit scholars have investigated several theoretical avenues in their search for an understanding of the role of nonprofit organizations in society. Some discussions have concentrated on the economic role of nonprofit organizations focusing on contribution to GDP (Stewart, 1996, Weisbrod, 1998), job growth (Hall & Banting, 2000), and the labour force value of volunteer work (Day & Devlin, 1996; Duchesne, 1989). Other discussions have considered the role from the perspective of contribution to society in terms of social service provision, and recreational and cultural enrichments beyond what can be provided by the for profit or government sectors (Hall & Banting, 2000, Kramer, 2000, Salamon & Anheier, 1998). Yet, a third scholarly focus has been to investigate the role of voluntary organizations in developing and maintaining social capital. With the publication of Putnam’s (2000) book, Bowling Alone, this concept has become the topic of increasing academic discourse, because of the connection that he makes between voluntary associations, social capital and economic development. Indeed, Putnam (1993, 1995) and Fukuyama (1995) conclude that social capital is a precondition for economic prosperity. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of voluntary organizations as bridgers and bonders in society and the implications of this role in social and economic development. <div>Keywords: CVSS, Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Working Paper Series, TRSM, Ted Rogers School of Management</div>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".