Residents’ Attitudes and Social Innovation Management in the Example of a Municipal Property Manager
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate responsibility is an effective management strategy which, through conducting social dialogue at the local level, contributes to increasing the competitiveness of enterprises at a global level and simultaneously shaping favourable conditions for social and economic development. A review of the literature on the subject provided the theoretical motivation to undertake an emirical study of the implemented social innovations by the property manager and their reception by resource residents. The main aim of this study was to diagnose the attitudes of residents towards the implementation of social innovations by the municipal property manager. The research presented in the above article has been conducted in the first and second quarter of 2021 among residents of the Department of Housing “TBS” (ZGM TBS) in Częstochowa, Silesian voivoideship, Poland. The research was conducted using the survey method. The measurement instrument was a prepared questionnaire. The survey was completed by 362 respondents (n = 362). To confirm the hypotheses, an analysis using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Anov Kruskal–Wallis test were performed. In order to demonstrate the statistical significance of the assumptions made, the conducted tests were also supported by the p-value test. The research results undertaken made it possible to identify social innovations implemented by the municipal manager, both those which are expected by residents and those which tenants consider superfluous.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".