MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W423532015

Handicapped children's services : policy, practice and implementation: an analysis

2000· dissertation· en· W423532015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheryl Lynn Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handicapped Children's Services is a provincial program designed to support the families of children with disabilities to maintain their children at home. Recently, the government of Alberta has shifted responsibility and authority for the implementation of this program to regionally based Child and Family Services Authorities. This study examined Handicapped Children's Services from four perspectives. First, the legislation establishing the program was reviewed. Secondly, the program policy supporting the program was explored. Thirdly, the practice of workers in Handicapped Children's Services was examined. Finally, the experience of families who use the program was probed. The multiple perspectives were included in order to explore Handicapped Children's Services from legislation and policy to the experience of families. This study looked at the implementation of Handicapped Children's Services in one of the eighteen regions of the province. The examination suggests that a program, which is solidly based in legislation and policy, is not being implemented in accordance with the principles, values and desired outcomes on which it was established. Workers implementing the program, as well as the families using the program, have much to offer in the way of input. The challenge is to the regional authorities and their willingness to incorporate that input into future action. The applicability to other jurisdictional areas within Alberta is considered. As Alberta continues to embrace community governance, every opportunity should be taken to learn from those regional jurisdictions that have begun to incorporate this model of governance.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207