MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096589024 · doi:10.1080/13636820.2020.1771088

Fundraising in Ontario colleges: an emerging profession?

2020· article· en· W3096589024 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cindy Gouveia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vocational Education and Training · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptualized because I found a paucity of standardized requirements for fundraising positions, this exploratory/descriptive research study explored whether fundraising is an emerging profession in the context of Ontario’s English language Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT). The study relied on both quantitative and qualitative data through a survey and interviews with five participant groups: college knowledge leaders, fundraisers and teachers in eight Ontario colleges, students enrolled in a full-time fundraising program, and donors who had contributed to an Ontario college within the previous five to 10 years.\nFocusing on fundraising post 1995, the study sought to explore the extent to which the five classical traits of professions identified in the literature, were evident in Ontario college fundraising activity, namely: autonomy, a formal course of study, a unique body of knowledge, professional associations with a formal code of ethics, and state regulations.\nThe sample size was relatively small because of the focus of the research. Additionally, the findings of the study are not generalizable, as participants were not randomly selected from the population. However, as an exploratory/descriptive study and because of the paucity of scholarly data related to the specific research focus, the findings will add to an overall understanding of the topic.\nThe literature review for the research revolved around the history of philanthropy in Canada as it relates to laws and taxes, origins of fundraising in Ontario colleges, and traits or characteristics that define a profession.\nThe findings concluded that fundraising is not yet a profession, but it is in the process of evolving into one as some traits associated with a profession were visible in the data; other traits were at various stages of development. In fact, when fundraising in Ontario colleges was analyzed for the presence of trait criteria, I found that none of the requirements of the identified characteristics were fully met. The study concluded that there was room for more research in the area of fundraising as a profession in Ontario and there was a need for the development of Canada-specific fundraising policies as well as deeper inquiry into the professionalization of fundraisers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vocational Education and TrainingSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207