Accounting for the value of volunteer contributions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for an accounting paradigm that properly illustrates the value that nonprofits generate. Much of that value comes from volunteer contributions, which are significant but for the most part are not included in financial accounting statements, even though our research indicates that they account for almost a third of the value added by these organizations. This article reports the results of two studies related to measuring volunteer value in the accounting of nonprofits and then draws some policy implications from the research. The first study, a survey of 156 nonprofits in Canada, found that although about one-third of the sample kept records of volunteer hours, only 3 percent included a value for them in their accounting statements. The second study, of nonprofit accountants, found that they did not feel that financial accounting statements properly represented the contribution of their organizations. A series of policy recommendations are presented, including suggestions for revising the regulations of accounting bodies for imputing volunteer value and creating accounting statements that better represent the contribution of nonprofits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it