Promoting Evidence-Informed Practice in Child Welfare in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practice and Research Together (PART) is an Ontario-based research utilization initiative, the core function of which is to distil and disseminate practice-relevant research findings to child welfare practitioners. This article addresses (a) the mission and goals of the PART program; (b) the key components of the program design; (c) the conceptual foundations of evidence-informed practice (EIP) as it relates to the program; (d) the successes and challenges of implementation to date; (e) the results of a comprehensive evaluation; and (f) areas for future research and development. Key findings of the formative evaluation include Link PARTners (LPs—organizational representatives) feeling isolated in their role in promoting organizational change; front-line practitioners reporting that they have little time or resources to use the program materials; supervisors stating that they support the concept of EIP but lack the skills and abilities to move these ideas forward; and executive directors are requesting more evidence to promote organizational and systemic change.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".