MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086644342 · doi:10.1108/01443330510791243

Where does all the money go? An investigation of donation filtration

2005· article· en· W2086644342 on OpenAlexaff
Saher A. Shaikh, Carolan McLarney

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeavenPreambleLawEconomic JusticeStatuteDonationSociologyLaw and economicsPolitical scienceHistoryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been much social and legal debate over the definition of the word “charity.” For some it is a path way to heaven, for others, it plays a decisive role in anti‐trust cases. Charles Dickens wrote “Charity begins at home and justice begins next door.” Lord Macnaghten’s take on the Preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth (1601) 43 Eliz. 1, c.4 (UK), whilst considered to have its limitations, is widely regarded as a useful starting point for a legal definition of charity.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social PolicySame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207