Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of The Foundation Review offers new insights into the growing field of global community philanthropy.Several articles look more deeply into specific nations: retrospective assessments of the development of community giving in Vietnam and Russia sit alongside a more theoretical reflection grounded in the South African experience of community giving as a vehicle for consciousness-raising.This issue also offers more practical assessments of specific practices, including social return on investment (SROI) metrics from Romania, and the community university model from Brazil.Finally, it offers comparative assessments of giving circles as one form of community philanthropy in the U.S. and U.K., and explores approaches to community management of large scale assets in Canada, the U.S., and Ghana.Each of these articles, from the broad and theoretical to the specific and applied, offer compelling insights and perspective on the fast growing and complex field of global community philanthropy.What was the impetus for this issue of The Foundation Review?This issue of The Foundation Review got its start almost two years ago, soon after I began my tenure as the first W.K. Kellogg Community Philanthropy Chair here at the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University.It was clear from the start that part of the Kellogg Chair's work would be globally focused, and so Jenny Hodgson, executive director of the Global Fund for Community Foundations (GFCF), was among the first people I reached out to.Perhaps no organization has been more instrumental in the massive growth of community philanthropy practices across the globe in the past decade than GFCF.This collaborative fund was launched in 2006 as a pilot initiative of the World Bank, Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and WINGS (Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support -a global network of grantmaker support organizations and associations) in order to support the development of community foundations in transitioning and developing countries.In 2009, it became an independent institution, and since then, under Hodgson's leadership, the South Africa-based GFCF has reached across the globe to spur new organizing, build critical local capacity, and enable transcontinental learning, all in an effort to power this growing global philanthropic movement.Since its founding, the GFCF has awarded US$4.2 million in grants to 176 organizations in 58 countries.1 As we talked about ways to collaborate, Hodgson noted that the research on global community philanthropy still remained underdeveloped.This discussion led to a March 2016 call for expressions of interest from scholars, evaluators, and community philanthropy leaders to propose ideas for possible collaborative research projects, with potential funding of US$2,500-5,000 per project.We ultimately received over 50 research proposals, from Brazil to Bangladesh.Although not scientifically representative, the proposals were certainly reflective of the state of the global community philanthropy discourse.It was clear, for example, that there are parts of the world -in particular, parts of Asia and Africa -where the idea of organized community philanthropy is not as well established as in other locales.Similarly, there was a strong correlation between the sophistication or ambitions of 1 Global Fund for Community Foundations.http://www.globalfundcommunityfoundations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.588 | 0.355 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".