Interorganizational coordination in a mandated relationship : a case study / by Elisabeth Jobbitt. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to address the \nproblem of interorganizational coordination in a mandated \nrelationship. Past research had found that the \ncharacteristics of the linkage between organizations was \nlikely to vary depending on whether the base of the \nrelationship was voluntary or mandated. The relationship \nbetween public health and educational organizations for the \nprovision of immunization services to schoolchildren was \nchosen for analysis as the base of the relationship had \nrecently changed with the passing of the Immunization of \nSchool Pupils Act, 1982. Accordingly, the present study was \ndesigned to answer one major question: How will the change \nin the base of the relationship from voluntary to mandated \ninfluence the pattern of linkages between the Thunder Bay \nBoard of Health and the Thunder Bay School Boards? \nMarrett?s model (1971), which focused on the \nproblem of linkages between organizations, provided the \nconceptual framework for this study. She proposed that \nrelationships might vary on four dimensions: degree of \nformalization, degree of standardization, degree of \nintensity, and degree of reciprocity. The case study was designed to be exploratory and primarily descriptive in \nnature. Twenty-one semi-structured informant interviews and \nseveral documents provided the data for this investigation. \nThe change in linkage dimensions was analysed utilizing \nMarrett?s model. The findings of the present study revealed \nthat change occurred in all four linkage dimensions but \nfailed to demonstrate major changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".