Review of Evidence on Personal Outcomes Relevant to the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review identified several long-term programmes on outcomes focused planning, some specific to carers, based in England, Wales, Canada, Sweden and Scotland. Key features of early work by the Social Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at York University influenced later work in Scotland and include adoption of similar frameworks for service users and carers, the inclusion of both process and quality of life outcomes, and the exchange model of assessment, which incorporates the views of service users, carers, practitioners and agencies in negotiating and agreeing outcomes. The SPRU programme adopted ‘whole systems thinking’ to reflect awareness that resolution of many health and social problems, and achievement of outcomes for people, lie beyond the ability of any one practitioner or agency. It was acknowledged that systems are complex networks of inter-relationships, which links to the recent emphasis on complex adaptive systems highlighted in the implementation paper that sits alongside this paper. A ‘paradigmatic leap’ in service designed and delivery is required. Literature on outcomes for young carers is more limited but growing and identifies long-term impacts of substantial caring on development and opportunities into adulthood. Separate work is underway focusing on young carers relating to the Act.
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 | 0.015 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".