On a wing and a prayer: How religion affects volunteering and charitable giving in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Western world as we know it is riding on a wing and a prayer as talk of a recession looms. Canada‟s financial state is troubling and often in situations such as this volunteering and charitable donations are relied on in an attempt to perpetuate normality in a sinking world. With generosity or philanthropy being such an important part of Canada, it is necessary to examine where these resources are coming from and why certain individuals are more likely to give communal support. Religious groups and religious people have been identified as a primary group of volunteers and financial supporters to charities. This paper will explore whether or not religious people demonstrate higher levels of giving and volunteering than the general public in Canada today and why. Previous research has concluded that religious individuals are more philanthropic than non-religious people, but there is some controversy as to how this difference may be explained. Social ties and religiosity are the two primary reasons given in the literature as to why religious people are more philanthropic than non-religious people. This study finds that religious people do give more charitably than non-religious people, but that there is no significant difference between the volunteer rates of these two groups. It also finds that of the charitable donations made by religious people a large portion of them go to religious groups. The factor that was found to help explain why religious people give more was religious teachings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".