A case study evaluation of Winnipeg's child advocacy centre, Snowflake Place for Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations are often an expectation that funders have for non-profit organizations such as Winnipeg’s child advocacy centre, Snowflake Place for Children and Youth (Snowflake Place). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Snowflake Place through the use of a mixed methods case study evaluation employing the tenets of utilization-focused evaluation. A total of 30 interviews were conducted, with individuals from key service providing partners of Snowflake Place and non-offending caregivers of children who were forensic interviewed at Snowflake Place. This study also analyzed the data tracked by Snowflake Place on its service recipients. The results show that although the organization has only been operating for three years, Snowflake Place is able to provide consistent high quality services such as forensic interviews. Results indicate that Snowflake Place has the potential to improve upon the overall positive experiences of both service providing partners and service recipients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".