MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038358387

How Effective Are Charity Managers? Evidence from a Panel of Charities

2021· article· en· W7038358387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationPanel dataSet (abstract data type)Baseline (sea)Test (biology)Data set
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the first causal evidence of the role that charity managers play in the financial performance of a charity. Using a novel data set of Canadian charities, I find that a one standard deviation increase in manager ability leads to a 0.516 standard deviation increase in total revenue, which amounts to more than $650, 000. Married couples are found to have a larger effect than individuals, and female managers are shown to have a larger effect than male managers. I then present extensions that show that the baseline model overestimates the effect of the managers.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207