MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150835628 · doi:10.1177/1049731507313978

Evaluation of an In-Service Training Program for Child Welfare Practitioners

2008· article· en· W2150835628 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsCentre Jeunesse de QuebecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareCompetence (human resources)Social workFeelingPsychologyMedical educationSample (material)NursingTest (biology)Training (meteorology)Applied psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To test the effectiveness of an in-training program for practitioners in public child welfare organizations. Method: The sample consists of practitioners (N = 945) working in youth centers or in local community service centers. Data are collected through self-administered questionnaires prior to and after the program. Results: The data show that prior to the training program, there are few differences between workers according to their educational backgrounds. Following the training program, practitioners felt more competent, had acquired additional knowledge, and had changed some of their behaviors with families. If level of stress at work had slightly decreased, job satisfaction remained unchanged. Conclusion: Findings suggest that an in-service training program may contribute to increased knowledge and feeling of competence and to modified professional behaviors, but it is essential to develop more valid indicators of knowledge and skills necessary to perform child welfare practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.489
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.081 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it