Understanding Information Exchanges and Reporting by Grantmaking Foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information and reporting issues are more present than ever in a context of accountability pressures on nonprofits and foundations. This conceptual article explores the information flows between the stakeholders in the philanthropic ecosystem and examines four broad types of reporting: tax and regulatory, financial, social, and grants reporting. Tax and regulatory reporting includes the general requirements imposed on charities and specific requirements imposed on Canadian foundations by the Income Tax Act. Financial reporting refers to financial statements and other financial information. Social reporting refers to information shared about foundations’ activities, non-financial performance, and impacts. Grant reporting refers to information requests and disclosure between foundations and grantees, and information about grants shared with other stakeholders. The article provides an analysis framework to examine the grantmaking foundations’ ecosystem and identify key trends and challenges regarding information exchanges.Les enjeux liés à l’information et à la communication sont plus présents que jamais dans un contexte de responsabilisation en expansion. Diverses parties prenantes participent dans l’écosystème des fondations subventionnaires et sont engagés dans l’échange d’information. L’objectif de cet article conceptuel est d’explorer la circulation de l’information entre les parties prenantes de l’écosystème philanthropique et d’examiner quatre grands types de communication, soit celles fiscales et réglementaires, financières, sociales et subventionnaires. Les communications fiscales et réglementaires comprennent les exigences générales et spécifiques des organismes gouvernementaux, par exemple, la Déclaration de renseignements T3010 requis par la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu du Canada. Les communications financières comprennent les états financiers et les autres informations financières. Les communications sociales portent sur l’information partagée à propos des activités des fondations, de leur performance non-financière et des impacts. Les communications subventionnaires comprennent les demandes et la divulgation d’information entre les fondations et les bénéficiaires et celle partagée avec les autres parties prenantes. Parmi les contributions de l’article, notons le développement d’un cadre d’analyse, basé sur la théorie des parties prenantes et sur la circulation de l’information, afin d’examiner l’écosystème philanthropique.
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 | 0.049 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".