Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diaspora philanthropy is a popular buzzword; however, what the term encompasses or how institutionalised the phenomenon is remains an open question. There are as many views and definitions of diaspora philanthropy as there are diaspora communities involved. It is often seen as a potential source of funding for geographic regions, religions or ethnic communities globally. But identifying a framework for diaspora philanthropy is difficult. Unlike the literature on international philanthropy (including ethnic philanthropy and cross-border philanthropy), which has been a predominant topic of interest in recent years, the literature on diaspora philanthropy is scarce. There is a variety of opinion on what should and should not be considered under this scribe, which makes it impossible to provide a definitive description of diaspora philanthropy that suits everyone. The term “diaspora” has different meanings for different individuals and groups of people. Some see it as relating only to exiled and ejected communities of people; others use the term to refer to individuals or groups who are living in a new homeland whether by choice or circumstance. This paper defines “diaspora” in terms of an individual or group which identifies with an original homeland, (either theirs or a member of their family’s such as a grandparent), and is in the diaspora whether through their choice or a circumstance beyond their control. This obligatory identification towards a homeland differentiates this study on diaspora philanthropy from those that define it as an affiliation with a religious community and not necessarily a specific homeland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".