Disbursing Charity: What is the Duty of Foundations to the Canadian Nonprofit Sector?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the pandemic, the federal government and Canadian foundations were challenged to increase their financial support for the struggling nonprofit sector. The federal government allocated hundreds of millions of dollars almost immediately after the onset of the pandemic; however, concerns arose that private sector philanthropy was not contributing enough, especially given the burgeoning fortunes of many Canadian foundations in the previous ten years. The federal disbursement quota—the annual amount foundations were required by law to spend each year—became the lightning rod for this debate. Federal government consultations in 2021 and 2022 allowed legal experts, nonprofits, foundations and other interested parties to provide input into how much they believed the disbursement quota should be, as well as whether the funds should flow more broadly to nonprofits that did not have legal charitable status (otherwise known as nonqualified donees). In Canada, many smaller nonprofits as well as many Indigenous-led and Black-led nonprofits have resisted charitable registration, given the cost and onerous administrative requirements placed upon charities by the Canada Revenue Agency. In 2023 the federal government increased the annual disbursement quota for foundations from 3.5% to 5% and permitted foundations to fund non-qualified donees. While these legislative changes shifted more responsibility onto Canadian foundations to support the charitable sector and may result in better support for Indigenous and Black-led nonprofits in Canada, it has yet to be seen how these changes will play out in practice as a result of stringent bureaucratic interpretations of the law.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".