Funding (In)security and Challenges: Non-Profit Literacy Programming and Neoliberal Contradictions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, the non-profit sector is expected to provide services for which the state previously took responsibility, and plays a vital role in providing key supports, such as those related to literacy and building social capital. In a jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada, local funding for literacy programs ceased without warning. In this qualitative study, stakeholders consisting of program users ( n = 72), staff ( n = 11), and program leads ( n = 8) shared their experiences regarding the goals, activities, impacts, and needs of the programs through interviews and focus groups. Findings illuminate both challenges and recommendations for future implementation in three themes: (1) Identifying and reconciling funding gaps and restrictions; (2) requiring supports for human resources; and (3) communicating, cooperating, and collaborating to survive. The challenges faced by financially strapped, non-profit entities highlight a fundamental contradiction within neoliberal ideology: Neoliberal-induced funding scarcity within the non-profit sector can undermine the capacity of community organizations to promote neoliberal ideals related to self-reliance and resilience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".