Stakeholder Roles in Community Development: Multinationals, Government and Citizens Roles
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
ABSTRACT This article focuses on the development of the Huasco Valley in Northern Chile, a region largely impacted by multinationals and governmental decisions, assessing the roles that citizens expect governments, multinationals and themselves to play in their development. Citizens were surveyed and interviewed using role theory as a theoretical framework, finding that they expect themselves to play the most important role in reaching sustainable development for their community, leading its future and supervising businesses' operations and the government's decisions. To accomplish sustainable development, they want to oversee economic development through growing the tourism and agricultural sectors and tackling social and environmental issues. More importantly, low trust levels must be addressed to achieve sustainable development. While role theory supports the view of expected roles based on what stakeholders represent, this research shows that although citizens understand stakeholders' roles, due to a conflicting history over their territory, they aim to restrict multinationals' and government's roles and for them to follow their lead towards community development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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