Broad versus narrow organizational scope among nonprofits: The moderating effects of the task environment
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
We use a mixed-methods design to investigate the relationship between scope and performance within nonprofits and under varying conditions of environmental dynamism, munificence, and complexity. Prior strategy research on for-profit organizations suggests that relatively high levels of environmental dynamism and complexity attenuate the negative relationship between scope and performance, while greater munificence reinforces it. Our longitudinal quantitative study of approximately 63,000 Canadian nonprofits suggests the opposite: greater dynamism reinforces the negative relationship, and munificence bears no definitive effect, indicating that certain task environment effects on the scope–performance relationship manifest uniquely for organizations pursuing social over economic value creation. We then conducted qualitative interviews with nonprofit executives to explore in greater detail the probable mechanisms that underpin these relationships, highlighting three—<i>nature of mission, scarcity of human capital</i>, and <i>competitive tension in collaboration</i>. We offer several contributions to theory and practice regarding the relationship between nonprofit scope and performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 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