MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967310784 · doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.903273

Assessing Performance in Shelters for Abused Women: Can “Caring Citizenship” Be Measured in “Value for Money” Accountability Regimes?

2014· article· en· W1967310784 on OpenAlex
Roma Harris, C. Nadine Wathen, Roxanna Lynch

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Administration · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityCitizenshipValue (mathematics)Value for moneyPsychologyBusinessEconomicsSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePublic economicsLawStatisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results are reported from a study of shelters for abused women in Ontario, Canada, suggesting that what clients, managers, and frontline workers value most in shelter services is based on a care perspective in which ongoing relational support is seen as essential to effective service delivery. Presently, government-required metrics used to assess shelter services not only reflect a narrow, justice perspective where “fairness” is defined as equal access to publicly supported services, but reveal a New Public Management emphasis on efficiency in which the focus is more on the “what” than the “how” of practice. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the design of accountability systems for evaluating government-contracted social services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.321 · 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