Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates how strategic community partnerships form the bedrock of successful institutional community engagement activities. In this investigation, these engagements encourage institutional practitioners to consider how truly effective community economic development materializes when the university assumes a reactionary role by tailoring activity to respond to outcomes community defines for itself. Using the formation and development of York Unviersity’s successful social procurement program as test case, the article explores how key community partnerships have led to successful program outcomes – which, to date, have amounted to over $8million spent on diverse suppliers and 63 apprenticeship opportunities created. To demonstrate this evidence, the article considers how to identify and align with community champions to create tangible outcomes as well as how those defined outcomes are translated into creating activities that are aligned with what the institution can reasonably deliver to achieve the community’s stated outcomes. In this article, this will be considered as it explores York’s Social Procurement Vendor Portal and how its formation and refinement was directly attributed to community need. Finally, the investigation considers the interplay between how institutions can design impactful reporting that responds to community need.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".