Leadership Memphis: An Evaluation of the Development and Progress of a Community Leadership Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important principle that community psychology research relies upon involves researchers acting as collaborative consultants with communities in order to promote social change. This relationship is considered to be a mutual exchange, in which both sides offer their own ideas and compromise on the goals and direction of the research (Duffy & Wong, 2003). One specific type of community psychology research that can operate out of this collaborative paradigm is program evaluation. This form of research seeks to determine the effectiveness of interventions through a variety of methods, including surveys, interviews, and questionnaires. With the large amount of intervention techniques in practice, this type of research is particularly important as it helps programs and organizations stay aware of what methods do and do not work (Duffy & Wong, 2003). With these notions in mind, the present study was conducted in order to evaluate the progress of a community leadership development program called Leadership Memphis. This program joins together established and emerging leaders in the community to learn more about the various facets of Memphis and to identify ways in which they can improve the city and develop their own leadership capacities (Leadership Memphis Brochure Copy, 2005). Leadership Memphis is only one of over a thousand similar programs that can be found all around the country, as well as parts of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia
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 | 0.041 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".