<b>Strengthening a Culture of Philanthropy</b>: The case for cultivating communities, connection and shared purpose to drive mission impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2025, the non-profit landscape is rapidly evolving with industry leaders sounding alarm bells for the future of philanthropy in Canada. The number of donors across the sector is shrinking, volunteer support is critically low, and organizations unable to diversify their revenue streams face dire consequences to their ability to deliver impact.The cause, says the research, is disconnection from community. Canadians who feel disconnected to each other, unattached to community, and lonely are at an all-time high. A 2024 CanadaHelps report states that from 2013 to 2022, there was a 40% drop in the number of Canadians who reported having six or more close friends. That disconnection is making a tangible impact on charities – from giving, to a lack of volunteers, to a workforce facing incredible pressure.It’s the reason that Global Philanthropic Canada has delved deeply into investigating the path forward for Canadian non-profit organizations. Through research, surveys and in-depth interviews with fundraisers and volunteers across the country, Global explores the critical importance of building a community within our organizations and offers practical insights for nurturing a culture that meaningfully engages stakeholders, ultimately supporting your philanthropic growth.Data for this report was collected between October and December 2024 through a combination of fieldwork surveys with fundraising organizations, desktop research and in-depth interviews with philanthropic volunteers across multiple sectors throughout Canada. We contacted all sizes and sectors of philanthropic organizations - from education, health care, arts and culture-focused, environmental, international development, social services, gender advocacy and protection, technology and innovation, recreation, scientific, political and faith-based organizations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".