Finding the funds in fun runs: exploring physical activity events as fundraising tools in the nonprofit sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An increasingly popular form of raising funds in the nonprofit sector is the special event that involves some form of physical activity. This paper describes a study that tracked 50 events over nine months in order to explore the phenomenon of physical activity events, their function as a solicitation strategy and as a public awareness/relations tool, and to gauge how these events met the needs of participants who donated their money and energy to a cause. Data were collected by means of participant observation at 12 events and interviews with 12 participants and 12 hosting organisations. Using a social marketing framework and diffusion of innovations theory as an approach to making sense of the data, the results suggest that events serve two main purposes: celebrating a cause and offering an event that satisfies the physical activity interests of participants, and that events appropriately act as fundraising and publicity tools. Implications for adopting a social marketing orientation so that nonprofit organisations can hasten the diffusion process by tailoring events to meet the needs of participants, and for further research are discussed. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".