Community centres and their support: a study of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accompanying thesis, written as part of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Social Work, and entitled "COMMUNITY CENTRES AND THEIR SUPPORT - A Study of British Columbia" is primarily concerned in showing how community centres can be supported, realizing that support is more than financial. Based, for its practical aspects, on a survey of community centres in British Columbia, it discusses the characteristics of community centres, defines their particular functions, and indicates possible support. The historic origins of community centres are considered, and the conditions which have contributed to the development of community centres are outlined. The concept is accepted that a community centre is a movement enabling a feeling of unity and democratic, expression for the community rather than the concept that a community centre is restricted to a building or program. The particular functions of community centres are defined as providing facilities, offering a variety of activities, and arranging the co-operative organization of all or several groups. Governmental or tax-provided support is advocated in providing facilities while both governmental and voluntary support are proposed in providing activities and developing a co-operative organization. Other guides or principles are evolved which can be of assistance in the development of community centres in British Columbia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".