MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362577235 · doi:10.1002/mgr.32134

Look Beyond Your Major Gift Donors

2023· article· en· W4362577235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œmajor gifts report · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationAdvertisingComputer scienceWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When you're doing data mining to find prospective legacy donors, look beyond your major gift donors, because they're not always your best legacy prospects, says Ligia Peña, an international legacy consultant at GlobetrottingFundraiser (Montreal, Quebec, Canada). “Your typical legacy donor is someone that has been donating for years, such as monthly donors,” she says. “Why? Because they are already committed 100 percent. There's nothing more irrational than giving money to a charity on a monthly basis directly from your credit card. It's bananas. But they're your best prospects because they are your most committed and loyal donors — they have bought in so much that they're willing to give money to your charity every single month. So if you are only looking at your major donor pool, you're missing out on a huge pool of donors.”

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œmajor gifts reportSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207