The role of interest‐based facilitation in designing accreditation standards: The Canadian experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses the design and implementation of a national certification process for family mediators by Family Mediation Canada (FMC) in 1999, as well as findings from data collected during the pilot testing, of the certification process. Debates continue about theoretical orientation, best practices, and thus the feasibility of standards of practice. This article argues that although these debates are vital to disciplinary growth, they deflect attention from areas of fundamental consensus. Professional practice arid certification standards are designed using one of two approaches. The first approach is expert‐driven and evaluative and focuses on differences among practitioners. In this approach, experts evaluate differences and then propose the best model and standards of practice. The second approach is interest‐based and facilitative. It builds on areas of consensus among practitioners. Facilitators use mediation methods to support practitioner self‐empowerment and self‐determination in the design of practice and certification standards. This article argues that adoption of the second approach was the key to the success of the FMC process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it