MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366813902 · doi:10.5430/afr.v12n2p25

Sustainability of Non-Profit Organizations: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4366813902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nur Hayati Ab Samad, Noor Hazlina Ahmad, Khadijah Suria

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySustainability organizationsGeneral partnershipBusinessSustainability sciencePerspective (graphical)Social sustainabilityManagement sciencePublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to present the state of the academic literature on the sustainability of non-profit organizations (NPOs) and how previous researchers have approached NPO sustainability. The review has resulted in the final 30 articles for review and analysis. The research characteristics of the articles are identified by examining the publication outlet. It is observed that research in the 1990s on NPO sustainability is scarce, with a focus on understanding and identifying models of sustainability. Research in the first decade of the 21st Century has focused on the financial and non-financial approaches to address the sustainability of NPO. Meanwhile, research in the 21st Century's second decade acknowledged the need to integrate the diverse perspective of NPO sustainability into a comprehensive framework. This study found various approaches that influence NPO sustainability: financial or economic approach; organizational characteristics and strategy; capacity building; partnership or collaboration; and value-based perspective. Theoretically, this study provides an overall view of how academic researchers have attempted to address NPOs' sustainability. In terms of practical contribution, this study serves as a guide for the NPOs and relevant regulators on how to address the organization’s sustainability from various perspectives. We further set out suggestions for future research as well as the limitations and contributions of this study.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207