Blending ameliorative and transformative approaches in human service organizations: A case study
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 paper describes the challenges and benefits of an action‐research project with a Nashville‐based nonprofit human service organization. In our view, outmoded human service organizations are in serious need of innovation to promote psychological and physical wellness, prevention of social problems, empowerment, and social justice. This project aims to develop and evaluate value‐based organizational processes and outcomes designed to transform human services. Although the goal of moving human services from ameliorative to transformative approaches is invigorating, our efforts have revealed expected and unexpected barriers to this process of change. Two main barriers are a strong cultural current working against change and irregular pacing of the change efforts. Positive outgrowths of the project include a new organizational philosophy that includes attention to issues of justice and equality, and changing individual and organizational beliefs and practices. Clear messages regarding the changes desired and a highly participatory process have facilitated these initial outcomes. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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