MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996750020

Strategies to Increase Membership in a Canadian Nonprofit Protecting Rights and Benefits of Retired Military Personnel

2023· article· en· W6996750020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks (Walden University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprofit organizationStakeholderThematic analysisExcellenceGovernment (linguistics)Qualitative researchGrounded theoryKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonprofit organization leaders with an advocacy mission are increasingly challenged to identify, convert, and maintain their membership base to sustain the effectiveness of their advocacy reach and effectiveness. Grounded in stakeholder theory, the purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore strategies some nonprofit leaders used to increase membership in a Canadian nonprofit protecting the rights and benefits of retired military personnel. The participants included four leaders of a small nonprofit organization in Ontario, Canada, who have directly or indirectly implemented membership strategies. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, client organizational documents, the organization’s website, an assessment of the client organization using the Baldrige Excellence Framework, and public information. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, which yielded four themes: marketing reach, membership value proposition, nonprofit strategy and mission, and board governance. A key recommendation is for nonprofit organization leaders to define a new veteran-focused strategy and mission that meets the needs of its current stakeholders. Implications for positive social change include the potential to provide membership recruitment and retention strategies supporting the needs of veterans and their communities.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks (Walden University)Same topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207