MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comprehensive, Multitiered, Targeted Community Needs Assessment Model

2005· article· en· W1982861334 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisseminationNeeds assessmentFocus groupHealth careMedicinePublic relationsMedical educationBusinessPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes methodological best practices for a comprehensive, multitiered, targeted community needs assessment and strategies used to disseminate and implement findings. Although the methods could be applied to different populations, this article illustrates a community needs assessment targeting older adults. The assessment methodology included public data; local healthcare facility data; telephone survey of older adults; targeted focus groups of older adults; and surveys of caregivers, service and healthcare providers, religious organizations, and key informants. Dissemination strategies included community forums and conferences, a Web site, and publications. Collaborative projects implemented to address areas identified for improvement are also described.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.008
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.305 · 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