Service integration and co‐ordination: a framework of approaches for the delivery of co‐ordinated care to children with disabilities and their families
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
This article clarifies the nature of 'service integration' and 'service co-ordination' and discusses how these aspects relate to the fundamental goal of providing co-ordinated care for children with disabilities and their families. Based on a review of the service delivery literatures in the fields of health, social services and rehabilitation, a framework is presented that outlines the scope of the co-ordination-related functions and activities encompassed in three common types of approaches to the delivery of co-ordinated care. These are a system/sector-based service integration approach, an agency-based service integration approach and a client/family-based service co-ordination approach. The functions outlined in the framework include aggregate-level planning of services (designed to map out the scope and plan for service provision in a community or geographical area), administrative functions (designed to ensure wise and equitable access to resources) and client-specific service delivery functions (designed to link clients/families to needed services). The framework is a tool that can be used to support policy making and decision making with respect to the design of efforts to provide co-ordinated care. It provides information about commonly used approaches and the essential elements of these approaches, which can be used in making choices about the scope and nature of an approach towards service integration/co-ordination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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