Foundation Funding of the Environmental Movement
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
We address the long-standing debate between elite theorists and pluralists about the priorities and scale of foundation funding for social movements by examining systematic data on foundation grants to environmental movement organizations (EMOs) between 1961 and 2000. By combining these data with a comprehensive inventory of EMOs that operated in this period, we show that foundation giving favored conservative mainstream environmental discourses, EMOs that avoided protest, older EMOs, and those located in the northeastern seaboard. Despite major growth in the constant dollar value of foundation giving to EMOs, this remains a highly concentrated system of philanthropy with over half of all foundation grants going to the top 20 grant recipients, a third of which have been leading recipients for over five decades. Nonetheless, there is evidence of change in that alternative discourses, especially environmental justice, received over 5% of these grants in 2000.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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