MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029134718 · doi:10.1177/1049731506295084

Measuring Foster Parent Potential: Casey Foster Parent Inventory-Applicant Version

2006· article· en· W2029134718 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

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsCasey House
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInternal consistencyFoster careReliability (semiconductor)Construct validityConstruct (python library)Foster parentsSample (material)Consistency (knowledge bases)Clinical psychologyApplied psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The Casey Foster Applicant Inventory-Applicant Version (CFAI-A) is a new standardized self-report measure designed to assess the potential to foster parent successfully. The CFAI-A is described, and results concerning its psychometric properties are presented. Method: Data from a sample of 304 foster mothers from 35 states are analyzed. Results: Six CFAI-A subscales were identified, and internal consistency reliability for these subscales ranged from .64 to .95. The construct validity of all but one of these subscales is promising. Conclusions: The CFAI-A shows promise for use in research and practice, where it might be used to improve decisions about how to support, monitor, and retain foster families and to match, place, and maintain foster children with foster families.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.216 · 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