Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Evaluations of Program Impact in Child Welfare in Canada: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Respondents to a recent survey identified the evaluation of service effectiveness as the most pressing priority for child welfare research in Canada. After a comprehensive search, we located and reviewed 10 peer-reviewed impact evaluations, published during 1995-2005, of interventions in Canadian child welfare. Four evaluations were based on randomized controlled trials, and six on non-randomized, quasi-experimental designs. After a critical review of each study, we formulated the implications of the review, for the design and evaluation of child welfare interventions in Canada, in terms of three main needs: for more high-quality impact evaluations; for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a wider range of interventions; and for the implementation and evaluation, in the Canadian context, of interventions of mainly U.S. origin that incorporate the principles of the increasingly influential perspective of evidence-based practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it