Casework service in a neighbourhood house : the administrative aspects of its establishment and operation - a study made in Gordon House, Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis reviews the administrative process involved in initiating and developing a casework service in Gordon Neighbourhood House. The service operated over a period of eight months, and during that time accepted only members of the agency as clientele. Through intensive cooperative work with Gordon Neighbourhood House staff it was intended that caseworkers should employ their skills to improve the social adjustment of group members and thereby enhance the general health and welfare of membership groups. The administrative structure of Gordon House, and the problems involved in integrating this new service into the agency, are described. In evaluation, the achievements and possibilities of this service are weighed against the investments of administration and staff required in an effort to introduce and to maintain this service. The estimated effort involved in relation to the possibilities for achievement, is the criterion used to Judge the value of casework services in this setting. A rating is made of the degree of success achieved in forty-eight cases referred for service. Case summaries reveal the process involved in the operation of this service. The finding is, that, providing the agency takes appropriate administrative steps, casework services are a practicable method of coping with individual problems that cannot be handled satisfactorily within groups. It is important that the workers and the administration be sufficiently flexible to meet each other's requirements. Specifically, the administration must define the purpose and function of this service in such a way that responsibilities of the casework staff be made clear. The casework staff in turn must be prepared to apply their skills in the less formal setting of the neighbourhood house.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".