Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article discusses the growing recognition of the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion in the philanthropic sector internationally. It explores how diversity goes beyond being a simple ‘buzzword’ and instead reflects the complex demographics and social structures in society. The article emphasises the need for philanthropic organisations to adapt to the world's complexity and address power dynamics and discrimination to fully embrace diversity. The authors highlight concrete methods that can be employed to foster more inclusive practices within organisations. They stress the significance of leadership vision and adaptability, as well as individual self‐reflection, in making progress towards greater inclusion of the diverse voices that make up our societies. Importantly, the article suggests that embracing discomfort and adopting a posture of humility is key for growth and change within organisations. The article discusses tools like the Wheel of Privilege and Power, which helps individuals understand their own privilege and position in society. The authors advocate for rigorously measuring diversity and discrimination in the workplace to develop action plans and implement concrete measures. They believe that research and practice should collaborate to collect and analyse data effectively. The article also mentions the need for collective and open conversations within the philanthropic sector, acknowledging historical inequalities and privileges. Overall, the article emphasises the importance of moving from diversity to pluralism in the philanthropic sector to ensure coherence and greater social justice in the pursuit of deep social change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".