Mapping the environmental field: Networks of foundations, ENGOs and think tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mobilizing funds that selectively support non-profits, foundations shape the political field. This study maps the funding relationships between foundations, ENGOs and think tanks in Canada and considers the implications for environmental politics. We examine foundation funding for different strains of environmental politics and policy-planning and consider how ENGOs and think tanks are clustered as communities within a foundation-centred support network. Of particular interest are 'clean growth' ENGOs that have emerged as key proponents of business-friendly approaches to the climate crisis. We find that the ENGOs receiving large grants tend to be conservationist while the think tanks tend to be conservative. Communities in the network are divided between several clusters of corporate and family foundations supporting conservative think tanks, clean growth ENGOs and conservationist ENGOs, and a segment of the network in which one municipal and several family foundations, support more social-ecological organizations, thereby facilitating more transformative visions and policies. Although few in number, clean growth organizations tend to receive giant donations, in some cases from corporate foundations aligned with the fossil-fuel sector. Recent adoption of clean growth as governmental policy and its embrace within philanthropic missions could reshape the environmental field towards 'clean growth', as ENGOs seek funding and legitimacy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".