MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965686537 · doi:10.1080/10286630701201988

A CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING AND EVALUATING COMMUNITY‐BASED AFTER‐SCHOOL ART PROGRAMS

2007· article· en· W1965686537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationThe artsConceptual frameworkSociologyContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Public relationsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is two‐fold. First, various perspectives that have been adopted in the discursive context of the benefits of engaging children and youths in artistic endeavors are examined. Second, in the hope of maximizing the quality of arts programs that enrich the lives of youth, a conceptual and methodological framework for the development of community‐based art programs for youth is presented. The aim is to provide a clear way to conceptualize and operationalize arts programs, and to delineate methods for the evaluation of their effectiveness.

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)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.145 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cultural PolicySame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207