Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line Planning in Social Enterprises: Developing the Guidelines for Social Entrepreneurs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article aims to discuss why and how the triple bottom line (TBL) approach can be adapted to manage the sustainability performance in social enterprises and thus assist the social entrepreneurs, who hold the central position in the process of social enterprise development. A system model based on design models such as the "Design of Results" and the "Cogniscope" was produced through the synthesis of multiple conceptual approaches following a systematic review protocol guided by the PRISMA Statement (‘‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’’). While extending the CogniScope' systems theory and practice in the context of S-ENT accountability, the article proposes the four phases (discovery, diagnosis and design, implementation, and measurement) for planning and organizing TBL efforts within social enterprises. The outcomes of the study will aid the S-ENT practitioners in the design and implementation of TBL framework in managing the sustainability performance of social entrepreneurship ventures. The applicability of the TBL approach can be explored and developed by subsequent work in different social entrepreneurship contexts.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it