Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Summary: This article draws on the findings of diversity audit study done at the East Area Office of the City of Calgary, in Canada. It identifies existing strengths and gaps in addressing diversity and social inclusion within the office staff and in the program planning, design and delivery to the diverse communities in the east of Calgary. • Findings: Although staff of the area office feel a strong sense of belong in the workplace and work collaboratively with each other in different streams, it was identified that more collaboration needs to be established between the community social workers and community recreation coordinators. It was also found that almost all staff in the area office have no knowledge for procedures to report discrimination in the work place. On the other hand, the community consultations have identified that East Area Office needs to develop close relationship with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities, which at the time of the study were not specifically targeted with programs by the office. • Application: Building from the disconnect between program planning, design and delivery on the one hand, and the inclusion of all the diverse communities on the other hand, the authors present opportunities for dialogue and partnership development to enhance collaborative work between the communities and the East Area Office. Through this collaboration, programs will be planned, designed and delivered with appropriate cultural sensitivity. As well, the authors emphasize the need to strengthen collaborative work between the community social workers (CSWs) and the community recreation coordinators (CRCs), which are the two staff streams working in East Area Office so that their efforts can complement each other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".