MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990876677 · doi:10.5539/ass.v15n12p73

A Planning Proposal for Building Institutional Capacity of Community Development Centers from a Social Work Perspective

2019· article· en· W2990876677 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueAsian Social Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunity and Sustainable Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Work (physics)Order (exchange)BusinessScale (ratio)Knowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed at identifying the reality of the institutional capacities available to the community development centers from a social work perspective: organizational capacities, human capacities, planning capabilities, funding capacities and information capabilities in light of their objectives, knowledge of the difficulties that limit the institutional capacities of the community development centers. The results of the study showed that the reality of the institutional capacities available to the development centers came with a medium degree on the macro scale, and institutional capacity came in descending order. The study showed a number of difficulties and developed a planning proposal to build and support the institutional capacities of the community development centers in Kuwait.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.286 · 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