Design Thinking for Social Change: Exploring Stakeholder Collaboration in Poverty Alleviation
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
Design thinking, recognized for its potential in addressing intricate challenges, has been applied to the complex issue of poverty reduction in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick. This paper delves into the innovative application of design thinking by engaging stakeholders and exploring their perspectives within a poverty-reduction framework. The study employs mixed qualitative and quantitative methodologies, including surveys, secondary data analysis, and qualitative coding techniques, to comprehensively investigate the potential of design thinking in poverty alleviation efforts. Through this rigorous examination, the research reveals the efficacy of involving beneficiaries and intermediaries in the design thinking process, culminating in the development of Canada’s first food bank platform and demonstrate the potential for design thinking to successfully address complex social issues.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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