A System to Support Diverse Social Program Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social programs are services provided by governments, nonprofits, and other organizations to help improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Social programs aim to deliver services effectively and efficiently, but they are challenged by information silos, limited resources, and the need to deliver frequently changing mandated benefits. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore how an information system designed for social programs helps deliver services effectively and efficiently across diverse programs. METHODS: This viewpoint describes the configurable and modular architecture of Social Program Management (SPM), a system to support efficient and effective delivery of services through a wide range of social programs and lessons learned from implementing SPM across diverse settings. We explored usage data to inform the engagement and impact of SPM on the efficient and effective delivery of services. RESULTS: The features and functionalities of SPM seem to support the goals of social programs. We found that SPM provides fundamental management processes and configurable program-specific components to support social program administration; has been used by more than 280,000 caseworkers serving more than 30 million people in 13 countries; contains features designed to meet specific user requirements; supports secure information sharing and collaboration through data standardization and aggregation; and offers configurability and flexibility, which are important for digital transformation and organizational change. CONCLUSIONS: SPM is a user-centered, configurable, and flexible system for managing social program workflows.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".