MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298728956 · doi:10.46692/9781447315599.008

Social Impact Bonds: shifting the boundaries of citizenship

2014· other· en· W4298728956 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipBondPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesBusinessLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction One result of the reforms pursued by governments across the world to reduce public expenditure deficits since the 2008 financial crisis has been a growing interest in outsourcing the funding and delivery of welfare services. In the UK context, austerity measures and the demand for greater policy innovation have been strongly associated with the application of market incentives and business principles to social welfare provision. For example, the UK Cabinet Office's Green Paper Modernising Commissioning (Cabinet Office, 2010) reaffirmed the government’s commitment to extending payment by results (PbR) mechanisms across public services. The UK government has declared that ‘new forms of commissioning and contracting … improve both the outcomes derived from delivery of public services and the value for money achieved by public expenditure’ (Cabinet Office, 2013a). Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are the most recent example of this policy trend. According to their supporters, ‘SIBs offer an answer to a question all policy makers are facing in these difficult fiscal times: How do we keep innovating and investing in promising new solutions when we can’t even afford to pay for everything we are currently doing?’ (Azemati, et al 2013, p 24). SIBs harness private investment to finance innovative welfare services, and the strength of the UK government's interest in them is testified to in its creation of a Centre for Social Impact Bonds within the Cabinet Office and the establishment of a £20 million Social Outcomes Fund designed to support the development of PbR methods and SIBs (Cabinet Office, 2013b). However, interest in SIBs is international – they are currently being considered or developed in the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Columbia, India, Ireland and Israel in relation to a wide range of policy areas, including reducing offending and recidivism, tackling homelessness, employability and active labour market measures and provision of early years education (Robinson, 2012). The possibility of extending the SIBs model to create Development Impact Bonds to fund social and medical programmes in the developing world has also been proposed (Rosenberg, 2013). SIBs are certainly an interesting idea, but they are also a significant innovation in how social welfare services are funded and provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207