MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523312605

The Rural Giving Difference? Volunteering as Philanthropy in an Irish Community Organization

2016· article· en· W2523312605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Gallo, Louise Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishAcknowledgementPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Leverage (statistics)PerceptionPolitical scienceSociologyPublic administrationPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, a national giving campaign was launched in Ireland—the One Percent Campaign—as an attempt to bring philanthropy into the public consciousness. While the campaign garnered great patronage from high profile individuals and received support from the Irish Government, the diffusion of this campaign to rural Ireland encountered a stumbling block. Irish community and voluntary groups remain under extreme financial pressure with the immediate mend of severed finances—including from the public purse— means that strategic, long term philanthropy is viewed as low priority. This paper outlines a recent case study of a voluntary community-based sporting organization in the rural North East of Ireland that initially fits this description, unaware of the national campaign and concentrated wholly on the funding needs of their organization. However, an in-depth study of the organization actually reveals insight into hidden philanthropy that emerged naturally, without acknowledgement or understanding of this activity taking place. The organization’s knowledge and perceptions of philanthropy meant that although they engaged in a vast array of philanthropic activity—long-term volunteer commitments; regular and sustained donations; a means to transform the organization—they were unaware of this work as philanthropic activity nor demonstrated the ability or capacity to leverage this success towards a significant expansion. This paper offers an intriguing platform to consider the attributes of volunteers engaged in such philanthropic activity—even hidden from themselves as such—as a spirit to the commitment to their organization and their sporting cause. The findings suggest a need for training and support for community volunteers in fundraising and philanthropy. Although this paper concentrates on research from one case study, the findings may resonate with other rural community organizations, with the attributes identified as a potential checklist: do our volunteers possess such attributes? Could this combination of attributes contribute to our success? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Resume Cet article presente une etude de cas recente d'une communaute-basee sur l'organisation sportive, dans le nord-est de l'Irlande, avec des activites conduites par des benevoles. Alors que le benevolat au niveau communautaire n'est pas particulierement inhabituel dans le milieu rural irlandais, ce cas montre le benevolat comme un mecenat: engagement a long-terme des benevoles, donations regulieres et durables; les moyens de transformer l'organisation et la communaute. L'organisation ne reconnait pas ce benevolat comme un mecenat, malgre le fait que cette action s'enligne avec les valeurs cles de la Campagne Un Pourcent de Difference (One Percent Difference Campaign) —la campagne nationale de dons de l'Irlande—adherant a l'esprit d'engagement pour leur organisation et leur cause sportive. Les resultats suggerent un besoin de formation et de support pour la communaute de benevoles en levee de fonds et mecenat. Bien que cet article se concentre sur un cas, les resultats pourraient trouver echo parmi d'autres communautes rurales et organisations benevoles qui ont pour but d'impliquer dans les activites locales qui pourraient avoir un impact transformateur sur la vitalite rurale et l'inclusion sociale.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207