MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791138626 · doi:10.1177/1035719x0500500104

The Development of a Logic Model for the Protection against Family Violence Act: An Incremental Approach

2005· article· en· W2791138626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janice Laycock

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation Journal of Australasia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationJurisdictionEconomic JusticeProcess (computing)Domestic violencePolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePoison controlMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsEnvironmental healthProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 1 April 2005 the Northwest Territories (NWT) became the seventh jurisdiction in Canada to implement family violence legislation. The NWT Protection Against Family Violence Act (PAFVA) is civil legislation designed to protect victims of family violence, improve access to the justice system, and provide a wider range of remedies than were available under existing civil legislation. It also provides a proactive framework that can be used when the grounds to lay a criminal charge may not exist. This article describes a process that was followed during the implementation period to clarify the intentions and delivery of the PAFVA program. This process involved the iterative development of a logic model. The process of development had two unique features; first it involved the clarification of a program from legislation, and second, it involved an incremental approach to logic development. Despite attention given to program clarification in the evaluation literature, there is little information on how to handle the translation of legislation through such processes. Thus, this paper is a contribution to this gap in evaluation knowledge by detailing the process followed and the lessons learned. The following section presents a contextual overview of the PAFVA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.112 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvaluation Journal of AustralasiaSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207