Government Funding of Charities Serving Indigenous Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several reasons why governments fund charities. Relative to government ministries, charities are often better able to assess and adapt to local needs, serve vulnerable populations, and deliver culturally sensitive services where appropriate. This article investigates the funding decisions of governments by focusing on charities that provide services to Indigenous individuals. The authors use Canada Revenue Agency T3010 data on registered charities from 2003 to 2017 to extract information on charities that serve the Indigenous population and further separate this group into those located off and on reserves. Governments fund Indigenous-serving charities differently than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Being an Indigenous-serving charity is associated with a 25 percent increase in the predicted probability of receiving government support relative to non-Indigenous charities (for the reference group). Indigenous-serving charities on reserve are 17 percent <i>less likely</i> to receive public funding relative to those off reserve. Federal government funding seems to act as a catalyst for provincial and municipal funding. The authors' results lend support to the idea that governments fund charities to provide locally appropriate services to vulnerable populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".