Canadian Child Welfare Outcomes Indicator Matrix
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Client Outcomes in Child Welfare (COCW) Project was designed to examine the state of knowledge about outcomes measurement in Canada and initiate a consensus building process for a coordinated strategy in tracking outcomes across Canada. Through interviews with key informants, reviews of the literature and analysis of legislation, policy documents and information systems, the COCW Project identified some of the challenges to outcome measurement that may explain the limited progress made in this field. These include a needs driven service delivery system, competing objectives of child welfare, definitional confusion, and differences between clinical and administrative use of outcomes. The Outcomes Indicator Matrix was developed as a first stage in a strategy that focuses initially on the administrative use of outcomes information, allowing the clinical use of outcomes measures to develop in a more gradual fashion. Indicators were selected in four domains which reflect the breadth of the child welfare mandate in Canadian jurisdictions: child protection, child functioning, permanence and continuity of care for the child, and family and community support.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.063 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it