MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385515418 · doi:10.1093/oep/gpad029

Charitable donations to natural disasters: evidence from an online platform

2023· article· en· W4385515418 on OpenAlexaff
Rajshri Jayaraman, Michael Kaiser, Marrit Teirlinck

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Economic Papers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNatural disasterEvent (particle physics)BusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the demand and supply of charitable donations to natural disasters on a large online platform. We document that the bulk of charitable donations goes to a tiny fraction of natural disasters, which tend to be severe disasters that receive media coverage. Charities do not fundraise for the remaining 96% of disasters, which account for 80% of casualties. Using an event study-type design to explore temporal patterns in charitable donations, we find that fundraising and giving for disaster relief occur in a timely fashion, but that both are effectively absent for disasters that occur within a 2-month window of large disasters which have attracted massive funding. We also find no evidence that donations to disasters crowd out those to other charitable causes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Economic PapersSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207