MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294955567 · doi:10.22495/jgrv11i4art5

Stakeholder engagement strategies assessment in expanded public works programme

2022· article· en· W4294955567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andisile Best, Bhasela Yalezo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Governance and Regulation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Treasury
KeywordsStakeholderNonprobability samplingDiversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Data collectionQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic growthDescriptive statisticsDemocracySocioeconomicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsGeographySociologyPopulationPoliticsSocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Africa has evolved and defeated a blemished past of apartheid before 1994. Even after 27 years of democracy, South Africa has been struggling to stabilise economic markets with continued control by the white minority that marginalised the black community. The unemployment rate in the Province of the Eastern Cape in South Africa has grown from 28.5% in 1993 to 45.8% in quarter 3 of 2020 (ECSECC, 2020). Set targets have not been met since 2018, with programmes implemented not attractive nor conducive for the targeted youth and persons with disabilities. The study critically evaluated the existence and the extent of stakeholder management strategies in the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) within the Eastern Cape Department of Transport and the effects of not meeting the set youth and persons with disabilities targets over the years. To gain lived experiences of beneficiaries, a case study of the household Contractor Programme was used in three districts through group semi-structured interviews with non-probability purposive sampling used to select respondents using a primary data collection instrument. Data received was analysed with themes using a descriptive analysis approach to narrate the lived experiences of participants within EPWP. Results revealed a need for improved stakeholder diversity and inclusion, communication with stakeholders, management oversight, policy guidance, monitoring and evaluation within EPWP projects.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Governance and RegulationSame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207