MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289548276 · doi:10.14288/1.0104495

Social work intervention in the school setting

2011· article· en· W2289548276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marilyn Callahan

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Work (physics)PsychologyMedicineEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the school year 1965 - 1966 the Vancouver East Y.W.CA. took part in a project aimed at improving the school performances of a selected group of children from the Woodland Park Area. This project involved the combined efforts of the school, the social adjustment group and the provision of family services. It was hoped that the team approach, as applied to the problem of school malperformance, would provide optimum service and facilitate future co-operative planning in the district. Although at the conclusion of that first year, there was a general feeling in the schools that the project had had beneficial results, some decisive proof was needed. For this reason, this present study was conceived, in order to evaluate change, if any, which occurred as a result of social work intervention. Initial research was based upon an analysis of rating scale results, and it was hoped, by the research team, that a "before-after" picture would evolve, and provide some correlations which would be useful in evaluating change in the children. However, after only preliminary study of the data, it became obvious that a number of problems hampered further analysis along these lines. The rating scale could not be assumed either valid or reliable; there were discrepancies between verbal and recorded judgements; there were discrepancies in the use of the rating scale amongst both school officials and group workers; in many cases rating scales were left incomplete and no correlations of any significance could be discovered. Added to these problems, were the lack of any control groups, so that there was a prohibitive number of intervening variables, and uncertain and differing criteria used for referral. The focus of the research team then centred on formation of a new design, which attempts to avoid previous mistakes, provides new rating devices, and outlines a statistical method of analyzing the data to be collected. It is to be hoped that with this different basis and focus another research project might be carried out to truly evaluate success of the program, and facilitate future planning and services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207