MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014092972

Partnerships: Putting Governance Principles in Practice

2006· report· en· W7014092972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2006
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceGeneral partnershipWork (physics)Meaning (existential)Project governanceInformation governance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This publication analyzes the research and project work of the Institute on Governance in civil society-government partnerships from the point of view of both players. The paper first explores the meaning of "governance" and "partnership"; then blends these concepts with good governance principles used by the UNDP and the Institute to create a tool for assessing good governance in partnership arrangements. Finally, the paper draws on the Institute's work in Canada and internationally, to illustrate some of the lessons and best practices in the governance of partnerships.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.084
Scholarly communication0.0370.042
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)French-language works237,207