MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405364955 · doi:10.1108/sej-04-2024-0069

Impact measurement among social purpose organizations: which practices are associated with useful, non-burdensome impact measurement

2024· article· en· W4405364955 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial enterprise journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The benefits and challenges of impact measurement for social purpose organizations are well known. Measuring impact can equip managers with information to further their organizations’ purposes. Measurement can also be costly and time-consuming. The many tools and techniques give managers a choice; however, the techniques are not appropriately scaled to the financial and human resources available. This study aims to identify and validate a minimum set of essential impact measurement practices associated with useful, non-burdensome impact measurement among social purpose organizations. Design/methodology/approach The authors use data from a sample of social purpose organizations that answered questions about impact measurement practices based on the common approach to impact measurement’s common foundations model and three questions about impact measurement’s perceived benefits and value. The authors use factor analysis (first confirmatory factor analysis and then exploratory factor analysis) to identify the minimum set of impact measurement practices associated with the useful, non-burdensome impact measurement. Findings The authors found that the Common Foundations 21 practices are correlated and consistent with the perception that measurement is useful and not burdensome. However, the model that underpins the Common Foundations had a poor fit when tested with confirmatory factor analysis. The authors present and validate a revised model with a high goodness of fit. The revised model identifies ten impact measurement practices that, when implemented, are highly correlated with useful, non-burdensome measurement. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to empirically examine a minimum set of impact measurement practices associated with the benefits of measurement while reducing the burden. These findings are of practical value to social purpose organizations looking to benefit from impact measurement whose financial and human resources are limited. The authors offer them ten essential impact measurement practices. The findings offer a validated instrument for assessing if an organization’s impact measurement practices will likely lead to useful, non-burdensome impact measurement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it