MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393236436 · doi:10.33788/rcis.84.3

Challenges of Measuring Social Impact in Romania. A Case Study in a Social Economy Organization Active in the Social Services Field

2024· article· en· W4393236436 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cristina Barna, Adina Rebeleanu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsField (mathematics)Social economySocial changeSocial WelfareSocial impactSociologyBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsMarket economyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even if the social economy is an emergent sector in Romania, advancing social impact measurement and management becomes imperative for public authorities and the whole society to understand how much positive social change can be attributed to the social economy organizations, especially those active in the social services field. The main objective of this paper is to systematically review and analyse the first fragile attempts of social impact approach and measurement in Romania. Applicative research will be carried out in a social economy organization active in the social services field to understand the current challenges of measuring and managing social impact faced by social economy organizations. The article concludes with an in-depth discussion and a set of recommendations for developing a more effective national impact measurement framework better calibrated to the social and solidarity economy realities, particularly considering the social services field.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Cercetare si Interventie SocialaSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207