Room to Flourish: Lessons for Canadian Grantmaking Foundations from Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Canada has experienced a long and successful history of encouraging social participation and community activity through its grantmaking foundation sector, this article argues that Canada’s historic and present-day regulatory restrictions have limited the extent to which its foundation sector has been allowed to innovate and flourish. To exemplify the types of tractable regulatory schemes that have allowed grantmaking foundation sectors in comparative contexts to prosper, the evolution of the grantmaking foundation sectors in Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands is examined within the context of social origins theory. One important contribution of this article is to compare their regulatory frameworks to the Canadian context. It concludes with lessons learned for the Canadian grantmaking foundation sector and for public officials to consider.Bien que le secteur des fondations subventionnaires au Canada ait connu une longue histoire de réussites dans l’encouragement de la participation sociale et de l’activité communautaire, cet article soutient qu’une réglementation restrictive autant dans le passé qu’au présent a limité l’innovation et l’épanouissement dans le secteur. Afin de montrer comment une réglementation plus souple pourrait permettre aux fondations canadiennes de prospérer davantage, cet article recourt à la théorie des origines sociales pour examiner le secteur en Suède, en Allemagne et aux Pays-Bas. Une contribution importante de cet article consiste ainsi à comparer les contextes réglementaires dans ces pays à celui du Canada. En conclusion, il fait des recommandations pour les fondations subventionnaires et le secteur public canadiens.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".