MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033680890

Safety.net? Care, Charity, and Medical Crowdfunding in Canada

2024· other· en· W7033680890 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health careWelfarePoliticsPersonal careSocial mediaMoral responsibilityMedical care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a country that prides itself on a universal public health insurance system, why are a growing number of people turning to GoFundMe and similar crowdfunding platforms for health-related expenses in Canada, as beneficiaries and contributors? This dissertation argues that while assisting loved ones monetarily in times of need is not a new phenomenon, the increasing use and visibility of personal crowdfunding as a response to illness and injury signals a shift in the ways we think about, and engage in, giving and care relations. This research project offers a critical look at personal medical crowdfunding in Canada through a lens of feminist political economy complemented by multiple approaches to critical discourse analysis. It reveals personal medical crowdfunding as a space and practice that reflects and further cultivates neo-liberal ideals of privatization, individualism, and entrepreneurialism in relation to health-related financial struggles. Discourses and behaviours within the confines of crowdfunding platforms are found to be shaped – and at times, constrained – by the unique dynamics of personal medical crowdfunding as a practice, including “unspoken rules” around personal fundraising etiquette. This dissertation begins by situating the practice of personal medical crowdfunding within a context of neo-liberal re-structuring of Canadian health and social welfare policies which increasingly downloads responsibility for citizen well-being onto individual households and registered charities. Drawing on three sources of data – GoFundMe’s promotional materials, GoFundMe medical campaigns, and in-depth interviews with people who have participated in personal medical crowdfunding as a campaign creator, beneficiary, or contributor – I examine the ways in which crowdfunding discourses produce, reproduce, or challenge “common-sense” ideas about deservingness, responsibility for individual well-being, and health. Despite conflicted feelings amongst interview participants, GoFundMe decisively frames medical crowdfunding as a form of charity. An analysis of medical crowdfunding campaigns further illustrates that campaigns contain discourses of deservingness that characterize the beneficiary as hardworking, generous, and typically, as someone who would “never ask for help” for themself. By touting self-reliance as an honourable trait, crowdfunding discourses reinforce the stigma that many beneficiaries experience when seeking financial assistance for oft dire medical reasons.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it