Shifting Power Dynamics: Equity, diversity, and inclusion in the nonprofit sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first study of its kind, Shifting Power Dynamics: Equity, diversity and inclusion in the nonprofit sector, explores what Canadian charities and nonprofits are doing to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within their organizations. The study provides key insights into our sector's commitment to EDI through an exploration of the following topics:how organizations are integrating EDI into their workthe role of equity working groups in advancing EDIthe factors that enable and hinder organizations as they seek to apply EDI principlesthe role of governance and operational leadership in advancing EDI In addition to research highlights, this post includes recommendations for organizations to improve their EDI practices. We firmly believe that all organizations, regardless of their mission, have a responsibility to advance equity and address systemic discrimination and racism. Funders have a unique role to play so we include specific recommendations for them.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".