Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Summary: In 2005, a consortium of eight community-based organizations (CBOs) that do neighbourhood-level preventative work with families, youth and children in the inner city of Winnipeg, Canada, sought to develop indicators to measure the results of their work. Increasingly pressed by governments and other funders to produce such indicators, they believed that those generally in use missed many of the human gains that they were confident they were making with low-income, inner-city residents. They believed that their emphasis on the importance of colonization, and the need for decolonization, played an important role in their success, but that funders could not fully grasp this philosophical orientation, nor its practical implications. They approached the authors’ research institute for assistance in designing a methodology to better identify the outcomes of their efforts. • Findings: The close and collaborative working relationship between the academic researchers and the community practitioners led to the development of indicators that better reflect outcomes for participants as seen through their eyes. The purpose of this article is to describe the research design that we developed, and the manner in which we worked together to develop it; to describe some of the key themes emerging from the research, and the implications for social policy; and to reflect on the PAR framework that was used in the study. • Applications : This study, including the process, design and findings, is relevant for social workers employed as community developers in non-profit organizations; social workers on the front lines advocating for outcome measures that are sensitive to their ‘clients’ needs; social workers employed as evaluators and administrator; and social workers committed to research that contributes to building community capacity.
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 | 0.050 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.004 |
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".