Local community's engagement and enactment of social value from hydropower infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Social needs of local community are highly essential in the context of public infrastructure and have an impact on their performance. This paper explores the local community subjectivity in interaction with primary stakeholders to deepen our understanding of social value and this category of misunderstood stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a partnership framework that aims to help stakeholders be reflexive and construct knowledge about social value of the infrastructure. The empirical material includes an extensive review of the public infrastructure documents published between 1981 and 2021 and 13 interviews with key members of local community. Findings The main contribution of this study is an integrated model to study the social value of an infrastructure and a dynamic approach to study how a local community engages and enacts social value. The dynamic approach highlights three plans of stakeholder’s subjectivity, which are relational, representational and operational plans to promote inclusive stakeholder’s management (“of” and “for”). Originality/value The study combines an analytical and a theoretical framework to investigate the enactment of social value.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".