Postures et pratiques de fondations philanthropiques québécoises engagées dans la finance durable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que les fondations philanthropiques sont généralement étudiées sous l’angle de leurs activités subventionnaires, cet article explore comment leurs activités d’investissement peuvent contribuer à redéfinir leur impact et leur rôle dans la société. En tant qu’investisseurs institutionnels, les fondations peuvent mettre en place diverses stratégies issues de la finance durable afin d’allier des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux à leurs objectifs proprement financiers. En s’appuyant sur les résultats d’une recherche qualitative conduite auprès de quatorze fondations basées au Québec, cet article poursuit un double objectif. Il s’agit d’abord d’identifier les stratégies privilégiées par les fondations québécoises actives dans le champ de la finance durable. Il s’agit ensuite de dégager les conditions qui favorisent leur transition d’une finance conventionnelle vers une finance plus durable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".