“Music to our ears”: understanding why Canadians donate to arts and cultural organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The contribution of donations and volunteer time to North American arts and cultural organizations is impressive. Growing economic uncertainty coupled with the increasingly competitive nature of philanthropic work and fluctuating volunteerism rates describe some of the challenges facing nonprofit managers in the arts and cultural field today. The intent of this study was to explain charitable giving to an arts and cultural organization in a Canadian context using variables supported in the literature related to philanthropic behavior. The variables included the norm of social responsibility, donor benefits, philanthropic behavior, and household income. Data (233 questionnaires) were collected at a renowned community symphony with revenue from various sources including over $1 million annually in private support. Multiple regression analysis determined two of the four hypotheses were supported and two were partially confirmed. While the norm of social responsibility and household income did confirm existing literature, philanthropic behavior seemed only defined by length of time as donor rather than by volunteering for arts and cultural organizations and donor benefits included tax incentives but not receiving a “gift” in exchange for a support. Research such as this, which contributes to our understanding of arts and cultural donors and the benefits they seek, continues to be important with the potential to inform nonprofit managers. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".