MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rural Philanthropy in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Case Study of the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation

2020· article· en· W4408460597 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Miranda Ivany

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCooperative Studies and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayCorporationGeographyFisheryEcosystemRural areaSocioeconomicsArchaeologyBusinessPolitical scienceEcologySociologyFinanceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural philanthropy is often considered a core social norm of small and sometimes isolated communities; the propensity of local service clubs, church groups, and individuals to band together to support folks who have fallen on hard times. However, knowledge gaps exist about the impacts of rural philanthropy as a vehicle to address socioeconomic and environmental issues. Employing a case-study approach of the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (IBEC) in Indian Bay, Newfoundland, this project proposes to examine the suitability of obtaining a charitable designation for small rural environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). Further, this knowledge will be used to understand the benefits and barriers for ENGO's when entering into the philanthropic ecosystem in Newfoundland. This presentation of my MSc research proposal will highlight the current theoretical landscape related to rural philanthropy, the methodological organization, the anticipated outcomes of the project and the value of this research in the rural Ontario context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicCooperative Studies and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207