Guidelines for Using Child Welfare Administrative Data from a Measurement Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Administrative data, or data routinely collected over the course of an agency’s programmatic activities (Yampolskaya, 2018), have enjoyed a surge in popularity among social science researchers in the past few years. This is no less true in child welfare, where administrative data offer a comprehensive, longitudinal, population-level source of information from which to identify risk and protective factors and analyze outcomes that are not subject to attrition, social desirability bias, or underestimation in self-reporting from parents (Brownell & Jutte, 2013). Given the potential benefits of administrative data, the purpose of this note is to describe some guidelines for using administrative data in child welfare research. The guidelines described in this note are grounded in measurement theory as well as lessons we learned from conducting research using administrative data and pertain to the type of research that administrative data are used for (that is, tracking research to...
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 | 0.315 | 0.543 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".