MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302129917 · doi:10.14288/1.0106090

The Joint Family Services Project : a review of two years experience in making both casework and group work service available through a neighborhood house; based on the records of two (Family Service Agency and Alexandra House) of the three cooperating agencies, 1955-7

2012· review· en· W2302129917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iris Nordman

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Work (physics)Joint (building)Library scienceBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Joint Family Services Project which was in operation in Vancouver, B.C., during 1955 to 1957, is an experiment in bringing combined casework and group work services to family units. The three participating agencies are the Family Service Agency, Gordon House and Alexandra Neighborhood House. The present study is based upon the Project as it functioned in the latter Agency only; but apart from this limitation, it is the first attempt at a comprehensive review. Reaching families with incipient social and emotional problems,by means of observation of individuals who are not benefitting fully from group experiences, is the key note; and the study endeavours to assess the social services extended to those in need. This study is based upon the reports and documents prepared prior to and during the Project. It also analyzes the main statistical data accumulated during the two years, as well as making use of recorded material of both the casework and group work staff. Interviews with the staff members served to supplement this information on important points. In the survey, particular consideration is given to (1) the client and his family, housing, the neighborhood, and other socio-economic factors, (2) the role and methods of the participating group work staff, and (3) the role and methods of the caseworker and related consultants in this leisure-time setting. Chapter One deals with the preparatory work of the Project and its objectives. Chapter Two sketches a picture of the clients and the community from which they are drawn. Chapters Three and Four focus on the skills and services of the group worker and caseworker respectively. The final chapter brings together the preliminary findings and implications regarding this Project. Benefits to clients from the family approach to their problems are indicated; also the merits to social workers, namely, cooperating to deal with the "total personality". Some enrichments to both casework and group work can be seen in the Project process. Present achievements and possible future values should both be measured against the relatively small funds and short period of operation of this experiment.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0120.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207