MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1655576730 · doi:10.1080/15555240.2014.999078

Applying the Logic Model Process to Employee Assistance Programming

2015· article· en· W1655576730 on OpenAlexaff
Rick Csiernik, Paul Chaulk, Steve McQuaid, Kate McKeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Workplace Behavioral Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogic modelProcess (computing)Strengths and weaknessesComputer scienceProcess managementPsychologyEngineeringSociologyProgramming languageSocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logic Models are a program development and evaluation process that evolved in the latter half of the 20th century. As well as having the capacity to be a planning tool, Logic Models also allow for an in depth, multi-layered examination of an existing program. This article outlines the purpose, historic development, and strengths and weaknesses of this contemporary evaluation approach that has been increasingly utilized in the social services. An example of how the Logic Model evaluation process can be applied to an Employee Assistance Program is also provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Workplace Behavioral HealthSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207