MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792091599

Impact of work environment on training transfer, child welfare workers' experiences

2001· dissertation· en· W2792091599 on OpenAlex
Christine Lichti

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareWork (physics)Training (meteorology)PsychologyEngineeringPolitical scienceMechanical engineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inservice training has gained popularity in the field of child welfare. Program pl nning literature suggests that evaluation should be included in any program plan. Unfortunately, evaluation is often a missing component in in-service training programs. When conducted, evaluations frequently focus on the training event itself and stop short of assessing whether training participants have applied the training on the job. The work environment is increasingly recognized as impacting successful transfer of training. Grounded theory methodology was used in this largely qualitative evaluation of transfer of Competency-Based Inservice Training (CBIT) at Winnipeg Child and Family Services (WCFS). Post-training evaluations were analysed to determine work environment factors that may inhibit transfer. One hundred and twenty social workers who had completed the CBIT at WCFS were sent the "Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard" (Curry & Chandler, 1999, p.43). Fifty-four percent (65) of the sample completed and returned the survey. Theoretical sampling was used to select twelve respondents to participate in focus group interviews. The preliminary evaluation results were shared with each focus group participant and their feedback was integrated into the final report. Participants evaluate the CBIT event positively overall. They are applying parts of the training in their work, but application is inhibited by factors in their work environment. High workload is the most significant barrier to their application of the training. The findings of this evaluation are discussed in light of the literature regarding the competency-based approach, social work education and training in child welfare, and management of inservice training programs. Finally, some recommendations to improve the transfer of CBIT at WCFS are provided.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.234 · 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