Management of Charitable Program Expense Ratios in the Charity Sector
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
Abstract We examine factors likely to influence charity managers’ propensity to manage their charitable program expense ratios. To this end, we survey 202 Canadian charities. First, we ask managers whether they think a high charitable program expense ratio is important. The results suggest that managers are less concerned with charitable program expense ratios when there are no regulatory restrictions for this figure, but they are more (less) inclined to post a high charitable program expense ratio when the charity depends on private donations (relies on government grants). We also find a positive relationship between education level and managers’ perception of the importance of having a high charitable program expense ratio. Second, for managers who believe having a high charitable program expense ratio is important, we use a logit model to analyse their propensity to manage the ratio upward. We show that improving the management team's reputation, avoiding losing the organisation's charitable status and retaining or obtaining government grants propel charity managers to alter the ratio. However, managers with more experience in a management position in charities and those with higher levels of education are less likely to engage in this practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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