Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue of The Foundation Review offers new insights into the growing field of global community philanthropy.Several articles look more deeply into specific nations: retrospective assessments of the development of community giving in Vietnam and Russia sit alongside a more theoretical reflection grounded in the South African experience of community giving as a vehicle for consciousness-raising.This issue also offers more practical assessments of specific practices, including social return on investment (SROI) metrics from Romania, and the community university model from Brazil.Finally, it offers comparative assessments of giving circles as one form of community philanthropy in the U.S. and U.K., and explores approaches to community management of large scale assets in Canada, the U.S., and Ghana.Each of these articles, from the broad and theoretical to the specific and applied, offer compelling insights and perspective on the fast growing and complex field of global community philanthropy.What was the impetus for this issue of The Foundation Review?This issue of The Foundation Review got its start almost two years ago, soon after I began my tenure as the first W.K. Kellogg Community Philanthropy Chair here at the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University.It was clear from the start that part of the Kellogg Chair's work would be globally focused, and so Jenny Hodgson, executive director of the Global Fund for Community Foundations (GFCF), was among the first people I reached out to.Perhaps no organization has been more instrumental in the massive growth of community philanthropy practices across the globe in the past decade than GFCF.This collaborative fund was launched in 2006 as a pilot initiative of the World Bank, Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and WINGS (Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support -a global network of grantmaker support organizations and associations) in order to support the development of community foundations in transitioning and developing countries.In 2009, it became an independent institution, and since then, under Hodgson's leadership, the South Africa-based GFCF has reached across the globe to spur new organizing, build critical local capacity, and enable transcontinental learning, all in an effort to power this growing global philanthropic movement.Since its founding, the GFCF has awarded US$4.2 million in grants to 176 organizations in 58 countries.1 As we talked about ways to collaborate, Hodgson noted that the research on global community philanthropy still remained underdeveloped.This discussion led to a March 2016 call for expressions of interest from scholars, evaluators, and community philanthropy leaders to propose ideas for possible collaborative research projects, with potential funding of US$2,500-5,000 per project.We ultimately received over 50 research proposals, from Brazil to Bangladesh.Although not scientifically representative, the proposals were certainly reflective of the state of the global community philanthropy discourse.It was clear, for example, that there are parts of the world -in particular, parts of Asia and Africa -where the idea of organized community philanthropy is not as well established as in other locales.Similarly, there was a strong correlation between the sophistication or ambitions of 1 Global Fund for Community Foundations.http://www.globalfundcommunityfoundations.
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 | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,588 | 0,355 |
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 ».