MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410154185 · doi:10.29173/cjnser696

A Sustainability Framework for Social Entrepreneurship through an Indigenous Peoples’ Cooperative: The Case of the Bukidnon-Tagoloanon Tribe

2025· article· en· W4410154185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Loreta Sol Dinlayan, Helen P. Garcia, Annie Leah Roxann L. Emata

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTribeSustainabilityEntrepreneurshipSocial entrepreneurshipSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsEcologyAnthropologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through this study, the authors developed a framework for Indigenous Peoples’ cooperatives using the experiences of the Bukidnon Tagoloanon Mulahay Ha Kabukalagan Agricultural Cooperative (BUKTAMACO). The Tagoloanon tribe is one of the seven indigenous tribes in Bukidnon, Philippines. The researchers used a case study and ethnographic designs to which the internal and external stakeholders of BUKTAMACO contributed. The results revealed that, to manage its affairs, the tribe followed customary practices like Indigenous leadership, the observance of community values, the concepts of communal property and profit sharing, and concern for the community. Using their experiences, the authors developed a five-pillar sustainability framework that highlighted customary practices as the foundation of this framework. In addition, the role of the Council of Elders was evident in ensuring strength in leadership through consensus building.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy researchSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207