Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first section of the book contains an overview of the charitable sector in Canada, a sociological review of altruism in different societies, a discussion of altruism in various philosophical and religious traditions, an economic analysis of "rational voluntarism," and an assessment of the relationship between the charitable sector and the welfare state. The second section contains five papers on the legal definition of charity, both general (the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal and a proposal for rethinking the concept of "public benefit"), and particular (the political purposes doctrine, religion as charity, and a commentary on the recent major Supreme Court decision on the meaning of charity). The third section deals with the tax status of charities: two papers evaluate the current tax credit system and one deals with the administration of charities by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The final section contains essays on charities and commercial enterprise, on the regulation of fund-raising, and on needed reforms in non-profit corporation law. At a time when the federal government is about to embark on a wide range of policy initiatives to assist and regulate the non-profit sector, these essays are necessary reading for anyone concerned with the future of the charitable sector in Canada. Contributors include Neil Brooks (Osgoode Hall Law School), Cara Cameron (McGill), Bruce Chapman, Kevin Davis (Toronto), Abraham Drassinower (Toronto), David Duff (Toronto), Richard Janda (McGill), Will Kymlicka (Queen's), Andrée Lajoie (Montreal), Mayo Moran (Toronto), Charles-Maxime Panaccio (office of Mr Justice Charles Gonthier), Jim Phillips, Jane Allyn Piliavin (Wisconsin-Madison), David Sharpe (Attorney-General's Office, New York State), Lorne Sossin (Osgoode Hall Law School), David Stevens, and Jen-Chieh Ting (Academia Sinica).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.004 |
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".