MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodological strategies for evaluating youth gang prevention programs

2019· article· en· W2983592023 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Brisson, Igor Pekelny, Michael Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation and Program Planning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsDocumentationFidelityPsychological interventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlProgram evaluationSuicide preventionWork (physics)Occupational safety and healthData collectionProgram Design LanguageInjury preventionMedical educationPsychologyApplied psychologyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringNursingEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.429
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.657
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4290.657
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.068 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEvaluation and Program PlanningSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207