Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based groupwork is becoming essential but is difficult to implement in the real world of competing priorities, time and resource constraints. This paper discusses a collaborative pilot-project, in which a scholar-practitioner team adapted evidence-based principles to develop and evaluate an innovative group. As research and practice evidence indicate mothers of children with invisible disabilities have unique, unmet needs, a short-term support-education group was set up. Using a single-case design, intervention was documented, mutual helping was observed and outcome (goal attainment, empowerment, satisfaction) was evaluated. Findings suggest this group was relevant and responsive to these mothers’ needs, despite member diversity and a short time frame. Sharing experiences, strategies and resources was seen as especially beneficial. Factors contributing to the outcome may include appropriate groupwork models, members’ strengths and motivation, as well as the collaborative team approach. While this pilot-project allowed innovation while ensuring outcome was monitored, replication is needed to verify outcome, identify influential factors and continue to develop evidencebased practices which reflect the realities of groupwork.
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 | 0.290 | 0.385 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".