MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W23900495 · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agt128

Internet Applications and Beliefs of State Agency Personnel. (Internet Use)

2002· article· en· W23900495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeanne Boland Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetRehabilitationQuarter (Canadian coin)Agency (philosophy)PsychologySociologyWorld Wide WebSocial scienceHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to and use of the Internet continues to expand. Cole et al., (2000) indicated that the number of Americans using the Internet increased from 19 million people in 1997 to more than 100 million in 1999. In the first quarter of 2000, more than five million Americans joined the online world - roughly 55,000 new users each day, 2,2889 new users each hour, or 39 new users each minute (p. 4). Deputy Secretary of Commerce Mallett (2000) stated, We live in a world in which every one hundred days, the number of people logging onto the Internet for the first time doubles. We've never had an invention take over quite this fast. It took radio 38 years before 50 million people tuned in. It took TV 13 years. It took the Internet only four (p. 3). With this kind of growth, numerous applications of the Interact have been proposed for human services, e.g., psychology (Barak, 1999), career counseling (Harris-Bowlsbey, Dikel, & Sampson, 1998), and rehabilitation counseling (Patterson, 1999, 2000). The interest and importance of the Internet to the field of rehabilitation are evidenced by its selection as one of the topics for the 2000 Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (Dew, McGuire-Kuletz, & Alan, 2000). Although the number of articles regarding Internet applications in the field of rehabilitation is increasing (e.g., Bitter, 2000; Gilbride, Breithaupt, & Hoehle, 1996; Gilbride & Stensrud, 1999; Hampton & Houser, 2000; Patterson, 2000; Riemer-Reiss, 2000), the articles are primarily theoretical and only anecdotal use was reported by Patterson, Knauss, Lawton, Raybound and Oehlers (2000). Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study was to identify similarities and differences among state directors, district directors, and rehabilitation counselors employed in the state-federal Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program related to their (a) access to the Internet, (b) beliefs about the Internet and the agency's Intranet system, and (c) perceptions of the ways in which rehabilitation counselors use the Internet. Method Instrumentation The Internet Survey, based on the theoretical article by Patterson (2000) that described Internet applications in rehabilitation, was constructed to gather data on personal access to the Internet, beliefs about the Internet and Intranet, and Internet applications that are used by counselors (e.g., looking up medical terms, identifying state and local resources). The survey was pilot tested with 18 employed rehabilitation counselors who were enrolled in a graduate course in Rehabilitation Counseling. After completing the survey, the pilot test group was asked to provide information regarding the clarity of the items and any general comments. Based on their feedback, minor revisions were made in the wording of the items. The final version of the Internet Survey consisted of fill-in-the blank items to procure demographic information on state, age, gender, years in the VR system, and years in current position. Individuals were asked to respond using a yes/no format for items related to personal access, agree/disagree for Internet and Intranet beliefs, and yes/no for Internet applications. Three parallel versions of the survey instrument were developed: Counselor Questionnaire, District Director Questionnaire, and State Director Questionnaire. District directors and state directors were asked to respond based on their own access and beliefs, but to indicate how they perceived counselors using the Internet in the Applications section. Counselors were asked to indicate how they were actually using the Internet. Participants and Procedures The Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) reviewed and approved the survey for distribution to all state rehabilitation agencies in the United States. A cover letter, copy of each of the questionnaires, and disk containing each of the questionnaires was sent to the 76 directors of state VR agencies in the United States (both general agencies [n = 51] and agencies serving individuals who are blind [n = 25]). …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rehabilitationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207