EMPOWERMENT THROUGH CLIENT AND FAMILY COUNCILS:CRITICAL ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Empowerment Initiative at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada involved the creation of client and family councils and the increased participation of clients in organizational governance. A review of this initiative was conducted in collaboration with the coordinators of the Empowerment and Family Councils. The primary intent of this review was to identify the progress that had been made to date and identify some of the factors that have facilitated or impeded the implementation of this initiative. The methods employed for gathering information included document review, key informant interviews, focus group meetings with a wide variety of stakeholders, membership feedback sheets and data mining from a range of sources. A number of implementation issues were identified that are instructive to any organization undertaking similar empowerment initiatives. KEYWORDS: empowerment. client & family councils. organizational change. advocacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.401 | 0.407 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".