Social infrastructure, community organizations, and friendship formation: a scoping review
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
Abstract Community organizations are a unique part of the local social infrastructure that provides opportunities for social connections and community building. This contribution has been established in research on social capital and the research on social networks. Little research has looked specifically at the processes that lead to forming new relationships within community organizations. In this paper, we address this gap by looking specifically at the situational dynamics at community organizations that contribute to making new friends. We approach this question by conducting a scoping review, a systematic approach to research search and selection when conducting reviews. Our review identified 37 relevant pieces of research. The majority of the research we identify comes from Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. We discuss three themes addressing situational dynamics that emerged in the analysis: (1) the importance of structured programs and activities as prompts for connection, (2) creating spaces for informal interactions, and (3) emerging mutuality based on similarities and differences. We conclude with suggestions for how community organizations purposefully create these situational dynamics in their work.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it