MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194800347 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256204

Spatial and temporal patterns in Canadian COVID-19 crowdfunding campaigns

2021· article· en· W3194800347 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew McKitrick, Nadine Schuurman, Valorie A. Crooks, Jeremy Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicMetropolitan areaSample (material)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GeographyDistribution (mathematics)BusinessSocioeconomicsDemographic economicsPolitical scienceMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online charitable crowdfunding has become an increasingly prevalent way for Canadians to deal with costs that they would otherwise not be able to shoulder on their own. With the onset of COVID-19 and related lockdown measures, there is evidence of a surge in crowdfunding use relating to the pandemic. This study gathered, classified, and analysed Canadian crowdfunding campaigns created in response to COVID-19 from GoFundMe.com, a popular crowdfunding platform. Spatio-temporal analysis of classified campaigns allowed for observation of emergent trends in the distribution of pandemic-related need incidence and financial support throughout the pandemic. Campaigns raising money on behalf of established charities were the most common in the sample, and accounted for the greatest portion of funding raised, while campaigns for businesses made up a small proportion. Dense metropolitan areas accounted for the vast majority of campaign locations, and total sample funding was disproportionately raised by campaigners in Ontario and British Columbia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207