Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveys are more than just a tool to measure donor satisfaction and preferences — they are a powerful entryway to deeper and more meaningful relationships with supporters. Catherine Cornish, Director of Leadership & Legacy Giving at Royal Columbian Hospital Foundation can attest. A few years ago she administered a survey to assess interest in legacy giving, but the responses she received revealed much more. “[The survey] included space for the donor to share a story about their connection to Royal Columbian Hospital,” she explains. “I received stories about how the hospital had saved their lives, and how healthcare providers gave comfort to a loved one during their final days. These were stories of life-changing experiences.” The common touchpoint initiated many transformative conversations. “Multiple times, a follow up call turned into a visit, a visit turned into a gift, and a gift turned into a legacy gift,” she adds. Source: Catherine Cornish, Director, Leadership & Legacy Giving, Royal Columbian Hospital Foundation, New Westminster, BC, Canada. Phone (604) 970-5931. Email: [email protected]. Website: rchfoundation.com
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".