MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243334665 · doi:10.1002/nba.30344

Many nonprofits vulnerable to uncertainty due to low operating reserves

2017· article· en· W4243334665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit Business Advisor · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)CitationGreat recessionFinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New research from accounting firm BDO shows that the nation's nonprofits are still struggling with liquidity issues that could hamper their ability to weather a downturn in donations and grants. The firm's recent study Nonprofit Standards found that nonprofits have liquid unrestricted net assets amounting to an average of 8.7 months of operating reserves. However, some 40 percent maintain between one month and less than six months of reserves, and almost a quarter of health and human services organizations surveyed for the report don't maintain any operating reserves at all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNonprofit Business AdvisorSame topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207