The Ideological Work of Philanthropic Myths: A Study of Post-pandemic Disbursement Quota Reforms in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research examines the role that myths play in sustaining the institutional position of philanthropy in a context of sector reinvention during the COVID-19 recovery. Specifically, we study discourse around the post-pandemic philanthropic sector reforms to the Disbursement Quota (DQ) in Canada. The DQ is the minimum asset payout rate that philanthropic foundations in Canada must maintain to enjoy charitable status and associated tax benefits. We examine submissions to government, media articles, and public statements by philanthropic sector advocates to analyze the ideological work of DQ-related discourses in creating and entrenching philanthropic myths. Our findings coalesce around three philanthropic myths: (1) the Modernization Myth (2) the Goodness Myth ; and (3) the Equity Myth . We argue that these philanthropic myths function to maintain the institutional position of philanthropy in this moment of sector reinvention by obscuring the sector’s colonial-capitalist histories and institutional contradictions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".