An exploration of charity/non--charity partnerships in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While charities and non-charities both work toward the betterment of society, only registered charities are able to access charitable funding. This difference in access, combined with trends in the voluntary sector including challenges to the definition of what is charitable, a lengthy registration process, lack of capacity within the sector, and citizen engagement through community development, have contributed to charity/non-charity partnerships as an emerging practice. This study provides an exploration of charity/non-charity partnerships with a focus on understanding the practice and the policies governing them. Interviews with practitioners provide important context and a framework for understanding the different models of practice. Legal interviews provide guidance on applicable policies. The study highlights the gaps between policy and practice and provides recommendations for both.Bien que de nombreux organismes se consacrent à créer une meilleure société, seuls les organismes de charité enregistrés peuvent accéder aux subventions caritatives. Cette différence d’accès, jointe à des tendances dans le secteur bénévole telles qu’un questionnement de la définition de ce qui est caritatif, un très long processus d’enregistrement, un manque de ressources et l’implication de citoyens dans le développement communautaire, a contribué à l’émergence de partenariats entre organismes de charité enregistrés et leurs compléments non enregistrés. Cette étude explore ces partenariats en se focalisant sur les pratiques et politiques qui les gouvernent. Des entretiens avec des participants offrent un contexte et cadre importants pour comprendre les divers modèles adoptés. Des entretiens sur le droit d’autre part mettent en lumière les politiques pertinentes. Cette étude souligne les écarts entre politique et pratique et fournit des recommandations pour les deux.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".