Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research to date on the societal impact of business school activities has focused on assessing the scholarly influence of our research on practice or the pedagogical impact of our teaching on students and alumni. Using a stakeholder theory lens, we turn the attention instead on the value that business schools can bring to an overlooked stakeholder group: our community partners. We focus on a specific example of a “recordable occasion of influence”—the community service-learning (CSL) project—and investigate not only how CSL projects deliver value to not-for-profit organizations, but also what business schools can do to deliver more value to, and hence have a greater impact on, this important stakeholder group. While we find that community partners derive engagement value from both the content and the process of the CSL projects, we also uncover many opportunities where business schools can make a more meaningful difference through deeper institutional engagement with community organizations in the long term. We discuss these findings in light of recent calls for greater accountability on how business schools create societal impact.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".