Individual Giving: Theoretical Discussions and the Evidence from Serbia and Canada Ethical Issues, Contextual and Individual Factors of Giving Time and Money to Organisations and People
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis focuses on individual giving, defined as voluntarily dedicating one’s non-material and/or material resources for the benefit of others or the common good. My research seeks to examine whether we are morally obliged to give, and it also strives to explain the factors that influence individuals to give. In searching for answers to the first question, I have discussed normative theories in ethics. All analysed normative theories maintain that we are morally obliged to help others, but they differ in respect to who these “others” are and for what reasons we should help. My research furthermore investigates contextual and individual factors that shape giving. Whether and how one engages in giving depends on her awareness of the need for help, then on her motivation as well as the personal and social resources she has a command of, as well as on an institutional environment, in terms of welfare systems, governmental support to the non-profit sector and the characteristics of the non-profit sector. Finally, my research provides evidence on volunteering for organisations, participating in the activities of informal groups, helping people directly and donating money to organisations and individuals in Serbia and Canada. This is the first such type of encompassing research on individual giving conducted in Serbia. Placed in a comparative perspective, it provides valuable insights. The rates of all types of individual giving that are analysed in both countries are higher in Canada than in Serbia, while differences in giving to organisations are particularly prominent. Most volunteers and donors in both countries give their time and money to similar causes, related to health, social services, education, religion and recreation. Both in Serbia and in Canada, most volunteers reported making contributions to the community as the reason they dedicate their time, while, reportedly, most donors give because they feel compassion towards people in need. In general, respondents who have a command over greater levels of personal resources are more likely to give both time and money than those with lower levels. However, not all resources are predictors of all forms of giving in each country. My research confirms that in order to gain an encompassing picture of individual giving in a country, as well as meaningful international comparisons, country-specific forms of giving must be considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».