Executive compensation in charitable organizations: a \ncomparison of media coverage and actual practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Canada Revenue Agency, there are over 80,000 registered charities \ncompeting for donations from organizations and private citizens to raise funds for their charitable \nmandate and to cover their operating expenses. A threat in the form of negative perceptions \nnoted by the media poses a risk to these charitable operations as one media perception highlights \nissues with exorbitant executive compensation in the charitable sector (Blumberg, 2018). Given \ncharitable organizations are dependent on organizations and citizens for donations, media \nattention related to high compensation levels within a charitable organization, may threaten their \nability to raise funds needed to achieve their mandate. \nMy thesis consisted of three distinct phases. In Phase 1, publicly available media articles \nwere thematically analyzed to determine the core concepts that are discussed by the media that \nhave the potential to shape public perception to compensation within charitable organizations. \nPhase 2 consisted of analyzing the compensation data of nearly 20,000 Canadian charities to \ndetermine the actual practices of executive compensation in Canadian charitable organizations. \nFinally, Phase 3 quantitatively analyzed the compensation data of the organizations discussed in \nthe media articles of Phase 1, to identify if the media is accurately representing the Canadian \naverages. The findings of these three phases revealed that the media is not accurately portraying \nthe executive compensation practices of many of the not-for-profits organizations in Canada. \nMy thesis significantly adds to the areas of research surrounding executive compensation \nwithin the charitable sector, as it is one of the first studies to assess the accuracy of the media \ncoverage on executive compensation within the charitable sector and how this may shape the \npublic’s perception on executive compensation. My thesis also provides a novel framework for charitable organizations to better benchmark their executive compensation levels to \norganizations of similar size based on Canadian averages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".