Mobilizing capital for responsible innovation: the role of social finance in supporting innovative projects
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 literature on Responsible Innovation (RI) has not yet fully addressed the role played by social finance (SF) in supporting projects and organizations engaged in the production of innovations that tackle grand societal challenges. This study addresses this gap by empirically examining how SF investors select potential investees and the principles they judge important in SF. Our findings show that SF investors apply a combination of criteria to select investment projects where entrepreneurial motivations, environmental, social and governance commitments, and the nature of the impacts being generated align with their portfolio's mission. Though not all SF investors in our sample had knowledge about the concept of responsibility, they nonetheless mobilized a broad set of principles that are closely aligned with the aims and practices of RI. More research is needed to clarify the type of resources SF use to support RI and the conditions under which these resources are 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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